Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the Burgh of Paisley, in the room of Oliver Ridsdale Baldwin, commonly called Viscount Corvedale, now Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, called up to the House of Peers.—(Mr. Whiteley.)

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Passenger Service, Larne—Stranraer

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Minister of Transport why the coal-burning R.M.S. "Princess Margaret" was run to and from Lame and Stranraer without carrying any passengers during the first half of December; and why she ceased running altogether during the Christmas holiday season, although the passenger traffic was such that sailing tickets were in use.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): To convey perishable cargo which was more than the "Princess Victoria" could handle. Throughout December, the "Princess Victoria" was well able to deal with all passengers on this route.

Sir R. Ross: Is the Minister aware that although the "Princess Victoria" has first-class sleeping accommodation, there is no third-class sleeping accommodation? Will he not pay the same attention to the people of Ulster who are going home after their holidays to produce the food we need, as to the conveyance of the food to this side of the Channel?

Mr. Barnes: The passenger certificate is for 1,515. I am informed that the highest number of passengers carried during that period was about 840.

Sir R. Ross: Why were there sailing tickets?

Professor Savory: Is the Minister aware that during the whole of the summer the "Princess Margaret" sailed only on Fridays and was lying up at Stranraer for the rest of the week, while thousands of people were being refused sailing tickets?

Mr. Barnes: I think the hon. Member was aware of the position at that time, because I met him and his friends who were concerned about the matter. He knows that every effort was made to meet the position, having regard to the difficulties arising out of the necessity to save fuel.

Yacht Master (Coastal) Certificate

Captain Marsden: asked the Minister of Transport if he intends to renew the award of Yacht Master (Coastal) Certificate to those qualified.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. This Certificate was instituted at the request of the Admiralty to ensure the examination of officers of the Royal Naval Volunteer Supplementary Reserve. The Admiralty have agreed it is no longer necessary for this purpose.

Captain Marsden: In view of the fact that this certificate is highly prized, and is a great incentive to yachtsmen to acquire a close knowledge of our coast, which is of great value in time of war, will the Minister disregard the Admiralty and reinstate it?

Mr. Barnes: There is no evidence that the certificate is in very great demand. I cannot very well overlook the advice of the Admiralty on a matter of this sort, because there is no other special reason why it should be continued.

Laid Up Tankers

Captain Marsden: asked the Minister of Transport how many tankers are laid up in United Kingdom ports.

Mr. Barnes: Three, Sir.

Captain Marsden: Does the Minister mean that those three tankers are awaiting reconditioning or are they rated as redundant?

Mr. Barnes: They are not awaiting either minor or substantial repairs. There is rather a long history about two of them, but I should say at least two out of the three are practically finished. If the hon. and gallant Member wants details of all three I will send them to him. I do not think any of them stand much chance of seeing further service.

Service Stores, Palestine (Evacuation)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Transport for what tonnage of Service Department stores scheduled to be evacuated from Palestine will shipping be available in each month of 1948.

Mr. Barnes: It would not be in the public interest to disclose details of the evacuation plans while the operation is in progress, but I am arranging to make, available the quantity of shipping required by the Service Departments for their planned evacuation of stores from Palestine.

Mr. Low: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient shipping for the plans, and has he recently had an application from the Service Departments to increase the amount of shipping to be made available?

The table below gives the number of casualties to ships (excluding those clue to mines) reported to the Ministry of Transport as having occurred during the years 1945, 1946 and 1947, and includes:


(a) all casualties to ships of United Kingdom registry, wherever they happened, and


(b) casualties in United Kingdom waters to ships of foreign, Colonial and Dominion registry.


Year.
Total.
Trading Vessels.
Fishing Vessels.
Total losses (included in previous column).


Serious.
Minor.
Serious.
Minor.
Trading.
Fishing.


1945
…
…
4,560
332
4,039
72
117
46
23


1946
…
…
4,095
339
3,464
83
209
38
20


1947
…
…
3,992
323
3,238
100
331
26
20

Mersey Docks (Inquiry)

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Transport when the working party investigating the causes of congestion at the Liverpool and Birkenhead Docks is expected to complete its inquiries; and if in the meantime any action is being taken to mitigate the difficulties and to expedite the handling of traffic for export.

Mr. Barnes: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes"; the answer to the second part has already been given in my reply.

Wrecks

Brigadier Peto: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will give the number of shipwrecks, including total losses, but excluding losses due to mines, for the years 1945, 1946, 1947; and whether he is satisfied that seamanship is sufficiently stressed both in the examination for certificates of competency and before seamen are granted certificates of discharge as able seamen.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, I am circulating in HANSARD particulars of casualties to ships in the years in question. I am fully satisfied with the scope and efficiency of the examinations for certificates of competency and for efficient deck hands. The requirements are kept constantly under review.

Brigadies Peto: To what part of my Question did the right hon. Gentleman answer "Yes"?

Mr. Barnes: I am giving the number of shipwrecks and I will circulate the de tails in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

Mr. Barnes: I hope to receive an interim report from the working party towards the end of this month. In the meantime, additional shed space is being provided as a reception depot and other remedial measures are under urgent examination by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

Mr. Davies: Is this not a question of having adequate labour to deal with motors when they arrive as well as space?

Mr. Barnes: I will certainly take notice of that.

Mr. Marples: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the difficulty of getting labour to the docks on Merseyside, and the shortage of tramcars which is due to a recent fire on Merseyside?

Mr. Keenan: Has the Minister asked anyone with local experience to go into this very important matter?

Mr. Barnes: I shall be glad to receive the views of my hon. Friend if he sends them to me.

INLAND WATER TRANSPORT

Captain Marsden: asked the Minister of Transport what is the mileage of inland-canal waterways now available for water transport; and what was the mileage in 1939.

Mr. Barnes: Full information is not available, but it is estimated that there are now approximately 2,400 miles of navigable canals and locked river navigations, as compared with 2,700 miles in 1939.

Captain Marsden: Does the Minister mind that the mileage will steadily decrease, or is he intending to take steps to encourage the use of canals?

Mr. Barnes: I certainly do not anticipate that the mileage will steadily decrease. There has been a decrease of 300 miles, 200 miles of which was in connection with L.M. and S. canals. As I emphasised during the passage of the Transport Act, I am hoping that the Ports and Inland Waterways Executive will develop the canals to their fullest capacity.

RAILWAYS

Season Tickets

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the large number of season-ticket holders who do not travel more than five or six days a week, he will arrange for a revision of the cost of long-period tickets which will take this fact into account.

Mr. Barnes: I assume that my hon. Friend's Question relates to season tickets on the railways of the British Transport Commission. The matter is one for the

Commission, to whom I am sending a copy of the Question.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is this not a matter of national importance on which a question can properly be asked of the Minister?

Mr. Barnes: the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who was a member of the Committee which considered the Measure, knows very well that it is not the intention, now that the organisation is set up, for the Minister to interfere with its day-to-day operations.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: On the contrary, does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that during the Committee stage he gave an undertaking that he was going to be forthcoming on these matters, and that on that understanding he obtained the Clause?

Mr. Barnes: I also recall that Members opposite were very doubtful about the Minister's capacity to do all these things.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will my right hon. Friend at least make representations to the Transport Commission on the lines I suggest, and use his influence to help?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir, I do not think that I can exercise my position as Minister to influence the day-to-day management decisions of the Commission. The powers of the Minister are clearly defined in the Statute.

Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of Order. Is it not possible for you, Mr. Speaker, to protect Members of the House when they are asking for information about nationalised industries—for instance, the B.B.C. and transport, gas and electricity undertakings? It will be a dreadful business if we cannot ask Questions about the administration of the nationalised railways.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter which lies within my province in the slightest.

Cheap Fares

Mr. Wadsworth: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he wig standardise the system of giving concessions for workmen's tickets on the British Railways, to avoid the situation where, in densely populated areas, workmen can mostly enjoy this privilege, whereas in less densely populated areas this privilege often is refused;
(2) if he will raise the age at which children can enjoy the benefit of half fare on the British Railways to the school leaving age which is now 15.

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Transport what is the reason that he cannot make a workable arrangement now that the Government has control of the railways that would enable clerical workers to have the same privileges of cheap travel that are available for artisans, mechanics and labourers.

Mr. Bramall: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the fact that children of 14 can no longer be wage-earners, he will advise the British Transport Commission to raise the age for half-fares on their trains and road vehicles from 14 to 15.

Mr. Barnes: Such arrangements are matters for the Commission, and I am bringing the hon. Members' Questions to their attention.

Mr. Bossom: Is it not ridiculous to segregate one section of the community and give them a privilege, while cutting off another, who do equally good work for the country, and refusing to give them the same rights?

Mr. Barnes: That may be the case, but, as I have indicated, this is a matter which will now have to be considered by the Commission when they are reframing the whole of their charges, rates and schemes for submission to the Transport Tribunal.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Are not the matters raised in Questions 8 and 9 of major public interest, and does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that the House is to be denied any opportunity of obtaining answers from the responsible Minister?

Mr. Barnes: I do not think it is legitimate to draw that conclusion. Members are aware that under the Control Agreement the fact that the nation paid the whole of the rent of the railways meant that every conceivable Question could be asked. With the passing of the Transport Act the position has been altered. In any case, by 1st January this year the whole situation would have been altered whether the railways were under their original ownership, or under the Transport Commission.

Mr. Leslie Hale: Will my right hon. Friend say whether all these anomalies and difficulties have arisen since 1st January, or whether they existed before that date?

Mr. Barnes: They existed before, but, as I have explained, Members of the House were entitled to put Questions of detail then because the State paid the rent of the railways. Since 1st:January, however, the date of decontrol, it has not been legitimate to put such Questions to the Minister.

Mr. Wadsworth: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that this matter will be considered by the Commission at an early date?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member can use his imagination, but it would not be based very much on fact.

Central London Line (Services)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to increase the number of trains on the Central Line to cope with the alarming increase of travellers due to the recent extension of the line.

Mr. Barnes: This is a matter for the British Transport Commission, and I am bringing my hon. Friend's Question to their attention.

Mrs. Manning: Is it proposed to shrug off every Question that is difficult? Has my right hon. Friend ever been on one of the Central Line stations during the peak hour? If so—and this has nothing to do with the Transport Commission—does he not consider that the conditions in which people have to travel to and from work are absolutely disgraceful, and a danger to life, limb, and the nervous systems of those who have to undergo journeys on this line?

Mr. Barnes: My reply was not given to avoid a difficulty. I am not in possession of the information which my hon. Friend needs, but I am satisfied that she will get from the Commission a full explanation of the difficulties and causes of this problem.

Mrs. Manning: I beg to give notice that I will raise the question of the Central Line extensions on the Adjournment, at the first opportunity.

Electrification (Finsbury Park—Muswell Hill)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Transport to what extent the cut in capital expenditure will involve the postponement of the electrification of the railway from Finsbury Park to Muswell Hill, when it is expected that this work will be completed and if in the meanwhile he will arrange for a diesel service to Kings Cross and Broad Street.

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid it will involve the further postponement of this scheme. I cannot say for how long. The question of a diesel-service to Kings Cross and Broad Street is a matter for the British Transport Commission, whose attention I am drawing to the hon. Member's Question.

Mr. Gammans: Does the Minister's answer mean that I can hold out no hope to my constituents of a better service than they are getting now, and that they will have to put up with whatever service is given them by the British Transport Commission, in which the majority of them are unwilling shareholders?

Mr. Barnes: I regret the situation, but many capital projects have had to be stopped at the present time.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to draw the Commission's attention to this, will he define the different circumstances in which is is prepared to draw their attention to a matter, to make representations to the Commission about a matter, to refer a question to the Commission about a matter, and to take no action in the matter at all? All of those four courses he has proposed this afternoon.

Mr. Barnes: I would prefer to study the comments of hon. Members at greater length.

Hotels Executive (Chairman)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the salary to be paid to the chairman of the Hotels Executive; and the length of his appointment.

Mr. Barnes: The authorised salary for the chairman of the Hotels Executive is £5,000 per annum. The appointment is to 30th September, 1952.

Mr. Davies: May I ask the Minister on what principle these salaries are fixed? Would the Minister say that the job of the Executive in charge of the roads is no more important than that of the Executive in charge of hotels, or whether the two positions are comparable?

Mr. Barnes: The salaries are the same, and I should say that both positions are worth the money.

Mr. William Teeling: Will the Minister say whether any of the ordinary executives are being dismissed in order that this particular gentleman may have the appointment of chairman, or is he just an extra one?

Mr. Barnes: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means when he talks about anybody being dismissed. These are appointments under the Transport Act. They certainly take the place of a good many railway directors, it that is what interests the hon. Gentleman.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Will the expenses in this instance be in kind or in cash?

Mr. Barnes: I have already indicated that so far that matter has not been settled. The Executives have only just been appointed.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the Minister state whether this gentleman is to be entitled to expenses to facilitate his progress from hotel to hotel?

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister tell us how expenses can be a matter of negotiation beforehand? How can expenses be anything but a matter of fact?

Mr. Barnes: Obviously the type of duties that different Executives have to perform will be taken into consideration by the British Transport Commission in settling any matter such as expenses.

Hotel Great Central, St. Marylebone (Use)

Sir Wave11 Wakefield: asked the Minister of Transort for what purpose is the former Great Central Hotel in St. Marylebone now being used; and what accommodation is being provided for railway workers in the building.

Mr. Barnes: I am informed by the British Transport Commission that rooms on the second and third floors of No. 222, Marylebone Road, formerly the Hotel Great Central, are being used as offices by


the Railway Executive. No railway workers are accommodated in the building.

Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that owing to the grave housing shortage in St. Marylebone there is very great resentment at this place being used for offices and not for housing accommodation, as it was originally stated it would be?

Mr. Barnes: Steps are being taken already and other premises have been acquired, but it was very desirable—at least, in my view—that these Executives should be sitting in existing requisitioned properties so that other buildings did not have to be requisitioned.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As this is the last Question to the Minister of Transport today—this is a matter of great principle—can you tell the House with whom the decision rests as to the responsibility or otherwise of the Minister for answering any particular Question?

Mr. Speaker: With the Minister, of course.

SOCIALISED INDUSTRIES (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)

Captain John Crowder: On a point of Order. Can you tell us, Mr. Speaker, whether instructions have been given to the Clerks at the Table not to accept Questions on the day to day working of the railways and the Coal Board, or whether it is to be left to the Minister to say whether he will not answer such Questions?.

Mr. Speaker: During the war, the custom was that the Minister indicated to the Table that certain Questions would not be answered. Those Questions, therefore, were not put down. The Ministry of Information, for instance, did not answer Questions on administration during the war.

Sir W. Smithers: Are we now to understand, Sir, that the Minister is a dictator, and the decider of the rights of the House of Commons?

Mr. Driberg: Is it not the case that before Christmas my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made a statement on this whole question, and indicated that it might be considered further, possibly in a Debate, or in a statement by you, Sir?

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter on which I have no authority whatsoever, but I gather that in the near future we may have a Debate upon it, in which case Members will no doubt be able to express their views.

Colonel Ropner: I always understood, Mr. Speaker, that the Clerks at the Table acted on your instructions. The position at the moment is that the Minister is able to instruct the Clerks as to what Questions he is, or is not, prepared to answer. We wish to submit to you, Sir, that Questions should be allowed, and that it should be for the Minister to refuse to answer with the full knowledge of the House that the Question has been asked?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister says to the Clerks at the Table, "I have no responsibility for this; this is a matter of administration by the Board, and I therefore disclaim responsibility." That being so, a Question cannot be put down about it.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Could you not help the House, Sir, in this way? A Question having been permitted, and put down, and the Minister having given a reply, are we entitled to give notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment if we are not satisfied with the reply?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Might there be made available to the House the information which you have just given, Sir, and also the subjects on which the Minister is prepared to answer? The House could then know what Questions the Minister purports to answer.

Mr. Barnes: On a point of explanation: If there is any allegation that I have attempted to give instructions to the Clerks, I deny that. The fact that there are Questions on the Order Paper today which I propose to refer to the Transport Commission makes that position quite clear.

Colonel Ropner: Then I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

ROADS

Bus Services, Scotland (Nationalisation)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to nationalise the bus service in the West of Scotland.

Mr. Barnes: I am not in a position to say.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, while he is considering this and is not able to say anything, there was an extensive bus strike in the West of Scotland last week; and is he also aware that the S.M.T. Company have declared a dividend of 55 per cent. free of Income Tax? When are the Government going to carry this matter through to its logical conclusion?

Mr. Barnes: The strike is rather a different question. My hon. Friend should be aware that, under the Transport Act, before the Commission can proceed with the policy of dealing with the whole of the bus problem of Scotland, they must proceed by the process of the area scheme. The Commission have power to acquire particular bus operations by agreement, but I am not in a position to say when it is proposed to nationalise the whole of the bus services of Scotland. My hon. Friend knows the procedure that must be followed.

Mr. Frank Byers: In view of the Minister's answers, is it intended to keel the Ministry of Transport in being?

Mr. Barnes: That, of course, is a matter for the Government and the House, whenever they are disposed to tackle the problem.

Mr. Willis: Are we to understand from the Minister that the decision to nationalise the bus service will be left to the Transport Commission and not to him?

Mr. Barnes: The Statute imposing that obligation on the Commission is well defined. Where there is unnecessary delay, the Minister has powers to take the appropriate action. I would remind my hon. Friend that the Commission has only been in operation approximately one month. The task of nationalising the whole of the bus services of Scotland is one upon which, I presume, Scottish opinion will want to have a say from the start.

Mr. David Renton: Will the Minister say to whom the British Transport Commission are answerable for their decisions on this and other matters?

Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend is just as well aware of the position as I am. The

Commission has certain powers that this House has imposed upon it. The Minister has also certain powers, and the questions I have been dealing with today are, in the main, concerned with matters of day-to-day management, which rest fairly and squarely upon the Commission. I am confident that if I were to depart from that position, hon. Members who are criticising me today, would be the first to disagree.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is not the Commission responsible to the Minister, and, in that way, is not the Minister responsible for answering these Questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is rather a wide argument. We are dealing only with the bus service in the West of Scotland.

New Buses, Rural Areas

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Transport if, in order to improve rural bus services and so enhance rural amenities generally and assist in increasing agricultural production, he will endeavour to secure a more substantial allocation of new buses to services operating in rural areas.

Mrs. Manning: asked the Minister of Transport if it is proposed that the rural areas which are so dependent on road transport should receive their share of the allocation of new buses.

Mr. Barnes: There is a general shortage of new public service vehicles, but I have no reason to believe that rural areas generally are worse off in this respect than elsewhere.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend give some facts to substantiate his incredulity? The services in the rural areas are very bad.

Mr. Barnes: The reply is that there is a general shortage everywhere, and it is not possible, at the present time, to make up the deficiencies. The services are no worse in the rural areas generally, owing to the shortage, than during the war. I am quite aware that there are certain rural areas which have always had an insufficient service, but that is not aggravated at the moment by the general shortage of buses.

Mrs. Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the rural areas must be worse off than the urban areas because many of


them have no buses at all, and no transport of any kind? All I am asking is whether, under the new allocation of 4,000 buses by L.P.T., as advertised, the rural areas will get some of that allocation, and a better allocation than the urban areas because they are worse off?

Mr. Barnes: My reply did not dispute that the rural areas generally are in a worse position than the urban areas. I stated that that shortage could not be made up out of the present limited production of vehicles.

Mr. Driberg: On what basis is the allocation divided between town and country?

Mr. Barnes: I could not answer that in reply to a supplementary question, but I shall be delighted to give my hon. Friend further information on a rather complex and difficult situation.

Commander Maitland: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is prepared to give priority to the scattered districts in regard to buses?

Mr. Barnes: No.

Colonel Clarke: Will the Minister consider whether the position could not be helped from the production point of view? Will he take into account that the big buses cannot run on many of the rural roads, and that this difficulty might be overcome by supplementing the number of smaller buses, so that they could feed the bigger ones?

Mr. Barnes: I doubt whether that would ease the present difficulty. It might be desirable to produce more double-deck buses, in view of the limited number which we have for public service.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is not the Minister aware that doing away with the basic petrol ration has affected the load on rural bus services to a far greater degree than it has in the urban areas? In view of that, will he reconsider the question of giving direct priority to rural bus services in the supply of buses?

Mr. Barnes: I am, of course, aware that the removal of the basic petrol ration has increased the strain on transport generally. I would not wish to place myself in the position of indicating where the strain is most acute.

Petrol Economy

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Transport what saving in the petrol issued to C licence holders has been made since 1st October, 1947.

Mr. Barnes: Statistics of fuel issues to "C" vehicles are not kept separately. It is estimated that since the 1st of October the net saving on the petrol issued to A, B and C vehicles is about 5 per cent, which is equivalent to a saving at the rate of about 100,000 tons a year.

Commander Noble: Can the Minister give an assurance that these applications are gone into as carefully and thoroughly as are applications for supplementary allowances by officers of the Ministry of Fuel and Power?

Mr. Barnes: I always consider that the officers of my Department are just a shade better than those of any other Department.

Sir W. Smithers: Would the right hon. Gentleman translate 100,000 tons into dollars?

Driving Licences (Renewal Notices)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated yearly cost of sending out reminders for renewal to holders of driving licences.

Mr. Barnes: The annual cost of this service to the public is charged as part of the cost of collection of motor vehicle duties, etc., and is not available as a separate item.

Safety Campaigns (Posters)

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Minister of Transport what is the object of the large number of posters displayed by his Department in many parts of the country saying "Get Home Safe and Sound"; what has been the cost to the taxpayers involved in this particular poster campaign; and whether he is satisfied that the posters have achieved the desired effect.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): The posters to which the hon. Member refers are part of the national road safety propaganda campaign and have cost about £50,000. I think that the campaign is having a good effect.

Major Beamish: Generally we all want to get home safe and sound in any case, and is not this a very good example of quite unnecessary waste of the taxpayers' money and of paper?

Mr. Callaghan: As to the point raised by the first part of the question, 125,000 people were killed or injured on the roads between April and November, 1947. As far as paper is concerned, if that is what the hon. and gallant Member is after, he should go and talk to the Conservative Central Office about some of their rather vapid posters which are disfiguring the hoardings.

Sir William Darling: Can the hon. Gentleman say how he reasons that persons who will not pay attention to oncoming traffic will read posters?

Mr. Callaghan: I prefer in this case to rely on statistics, and when a campaign was not being run nine years ago the number of killed and injured on the roads for the same period was 40,000 more.

Workers' Priority Tickets, East Kent

Mr. Carson: asked the Minister of Transport why, by order of the Regional Commissioner, workers' priority tickets have been cancelled on all bus services run by the East Kent Road Car Company in the Isle of Thanet; and whether he is aware that this will cause great difficulty to them, especially in the summer months.

Mr. Barnes: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) on 22nd January. After hearing representations at a public sitting on 27th January, the licensing authority for public service vehicles confirmed the decision.

Kerbs (Rural Roads)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Transport what is the number of men now employed in Great Britain in putting stone or concrete kerbs along country roads which never had any kerbing before.

Mr. Barnes: The information requested by the hon. Member is not available.

Mr. Bossom: is the Minister aware that we are hearing everywhere of the abnormal need of labour, and why is there any reason now to put kerbs on roads which have not had them for a thousand years?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is aware of the importance of this in the general scheme of road improvements, but, of course, with the cutting down of the road improvement programme this work is steadily coming to an end.

Mr. Bossom: Have we not heard that other works have to be stopped now on account of the cuts in capital expenditure, and if that is so, why waste money on things that were not needed before?

Mr. Barnes: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the cut in the capital expenditure on roads is probably one of the heaviest of the items so far considered.

Tramcars, London (Windscreen Wipers)

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that London tramcars are not fitted with windscreen wipers; and if he will consider whether mechanical aids of this description should be provided, so as to give the drivers clearer vision during wet weather.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, I am aware of this. I am bringing the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of the British Transport Commission.

Cats-eye Studs

Dr. Segal: asked the Minister of Transport why cats-eye road studs are in future to be banned from the roadways in built-up areas.

Mr. Barnes: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 26th January to the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe).

Dr. Segal: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an appreciable number of road accidents are due to the inability of motorists to see the crown of the road owing to the very bad lighting that exists in some built-up areas, and will he use every possible means at his disposal to decrease the number of road accidents?

Mr. Barnes: The evidence is that the accidents are not caused by the absence of cats-eyes in the urban areas. I am a very great believer in them generally, bait where there is a proper standard of lighting they are not so necessary, and in the urban areas, where the traffic is very heavy in times of fog, the motorist can add to the number of accidents by being


attracted to the crown of the road. I want my hon. Friend to accept the reply in the spirit I have indicated.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that with the possible cuts in fuel for lighting and the incidence of fog these cats-eyes ought not to be removed at the present time? Will he make representations to the county councils to try to avoid their removal?

Mr. Barnes: I am making it plain that they are only being removed in the urban areas where the lighting is of reasonable standards.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend agree that cats-eyes encourage motorists to put up their headlights, and that that increases the danger to other motorists and also to the general public?

Mr. Barnes: Particularly so in the urban areas, where headlights are not so necessary.

Mr. Bossom: Is not the Minister aware that in times of fog overhead street lights are not very effective and that these cats-eyes are very much more useful at that time and prevent accidents?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is proving my point, that they attract traffic to the crown of the road in heavy traffic areas.

Transport Act (Compensation)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport if he will name the undertakings on which notices of acquisition have been served in accordance with Part III of the Transport Act, 1947; and the amount of compensation payable in each case.

Mr. Barnes: So far no notices of acquisition have been served under Part III of the Transport Act, 1947.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister state whether any negotiations are going on at the present time with road haulage concerns for their acquisition; if so, will this House be informed of the terms of agreement, if reached; and will the Minister have to approve the terms of compensation or refer them to the Arbitration Tribunal?

Mr. Barnes: Certain negotiations are proceeding with regard to the acquisition of property by agreement. I am not under the obligation to submit the terms in any particular deal to the House. They are generally governed by the procedure of compensation under the Bill. The Commission will no doubt take that into consideration.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what course ought to be adopted by small road hauliers who want to be acquired?

Mr. Barnes: It is up to the small road hauliers, as in the case of large hauliers, to approach the Commission if they would like to settle their fate by agreement.

Mr. Davies: Will the terms of agreement be submitted to the Arbitration Tribunal before they are accepted?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir, certainly not. If the concerns are acquired by agreement, there is no need to avail ourselves of the services of the Arbitration Tribunal.

Road Transport Executive (Appointments)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the salaries to be paid to the chairman, full-time and part-time members of the Roads Executive, respectively; and the duration of their appointments.

Mr. Barnes: The authorised salaries for the chairman, full-time members and part-time members of the Road Transport Executive are £5,000, £3,500 and £750 per annum respectively. The present term of office of the chairman and the other full-time members will expire on 30th September, 1952, and of the part-time members on 30th September, 1950.

Mr. Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if any expenses are payable to these gentlemen in addition to their salaries?

Mr. Barnes: The procedure generally is to agree upon an aggregate sum for expenses to cover all the members of any particular Executive.

Mr. Keeling: Is there no saving clause in the agreement to say that the appointment shall come to an end before 1952 if the Roads Executive comes to an end before 1952?

Lieut.—Colonel Bromley—Davenport: How much will those expenses be?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot say at the moment. They are to be negotiated with the various Executives.

Captain Crookshank: Negotiated?

FERRY SERVICES (REPORT)

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has yet received the Report of the Committee on Ferry Services in Great Britain.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. I am considering the question of its publication. Meanwhile, I am placing a copy in the Library of the House.

Mr. Willis: In view of the importance of this service to the economic and social life of Scotland will my right hon. Friend give it his urgent consideration?

Mr. Barnes: Certainly.

Mr. Erroll: Will the Minister consider referring this Report to the British Transport Commission?

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Tractors (Oil Storage Tanks)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the shortage of tanks required to hold vapourising paraffin for new tractors; and whether he will ensure that sufficient steel is allocated to enable such tanks to be supplied.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture about the demand for these tanks and will write to the hon. Member later.

Peplow Air Station, Shropshire

Mr. Oliver Poole: asked the Minister of Supply if he will define his responsibility for Peplow Air Station, Shropshire.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I have no responsibility for this station.

Mr. Poole: If the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry does not own the huts, who does?

Mr. W. J. Brown: The Transport Commission.

Mr. Strauss: My Ministry certainly does not. I understand that the hon. Gentleman has a Question down to the Air Ministry on this matter.

Garden Forks and Spades

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: asked the Minister of Supply if he is aware that garden forks and spades are virtually unobtainable in the shops of West Sussex; and what steps he is taking to enable allotment holders and gardeners to prepare their ground for food production.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that manure forks are practically unobtainable in Devonshire; and what steps he has taken to make these forks available.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: There has been some difficulty in obtaining these tools, but arrangements have now been made with the trade to increase the total supplies available. If, on investigation, it is found that there is a special shortage in West Sussex and Devon, we will ask the trade to send further supplies there.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an acute shortage in West Sussex, and will he state whether this is the result of the Government giving the highest priority to agriculture products?

Mr. Strauss: I was not aware that there was a shortage in West Sussex, but I am investigating it immediately.

Brigadier Peto: Could not the right hon. Gentleman answer Question No. 72 on the Paper at the same time?

Electrical and Mechanical Department (Inspectorate Staff)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Supply to state the circumstances which necessitated the issue of a notice to all members of the staff of the Chief Inspectorate Electrical and Mechanical Department, Walsingham, Chislehurst, and signed by Mr. F. H. Maclennan on the 14th January; how much Government time and labour have been lost to date and what is the estimated loss to the taxpayer.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The notice was issued because of the discovery that a certain amount of private work had been carried out at "Foxbury," Chislehurst. The time spent on the work was about 90 hours, and the estimated loss in labour and material was £13.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether this notice, a copy of which I hold in my hand, was issued to the members of the staff because of my previous representations? Is he aware that the proceedings of this case are a local scandal and a typical instance of waste of time and public money?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir.

Sir W. Smithers: Well, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be.

R.A.O.C. Depot, Melmerby

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Supply how many men and how many women are now being employed at the R.A.O.C. depot, Melmerby; what is the weekly cost of keeping the depot open; and what amount of traffic is dealt with per week through the private railway siding.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Thirty-seven men and six women are employed at the Depot, which costs £233 a week to run. The amount of traffic' received and despatched averages 90 tons a week.

Mr. Turton: Will the Minister look into this and see whether the time has come when the great waste of manpower and womanpower, as well as of public money, involved at this Depot should be discontinued?

Mr. Strauss: I have looked into this and, in view of the special nature of this case, I am satisfied that the manpower involved is really necessary.

Ministerial Statements (News Conferences)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that there will be a diminution of the practice of Ministers of the Crown holding news conferences and making public announcements through the Press and other quarters; and more opportunity afforded for the pronouncements to be made to the House of Commons in accordance with the customary Parliamentary practice.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Both methods of public announcement are appropriate according to the circumstances and to the nature of the statement, and the Government must reserve a reasonable measure of discretion as to which method is employed. The House may be assured, however, that the Government have every wish and intention to recognise to the full their constitutional responsibilities to the House of Commons, and on all appropriate occasions, statements will be made in this House.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is no reflection of any sort on our faithful and energetic Press, and can he give a specific assurance that what took place just before the House reassembled—a broadcast by the Minister of Fuel and Power on basic petrol—will not be repeated in view of the importance of this matter and of the fact that this House was being by-passed?

The Prime Minister: I would like to have any specific point brought to my notice.

ECONOMIC SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to make his promised statement on the creation of the office of Economic Secretary to the Treasury.

The Prime Minister: My right hone Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in addition to his traditional responsibility for financial policy, is now responsible also for those functions with which lie was previously charged as Minister for Economic Affairs in the general co-ordination of the economic policy of the Government. He is assisted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his normal departmental functions connected with financial policy, administration and procedure, including Parliamentary financial procedure, financial control of Supply services and establishments, and revenue and exchange control administration.
In his new functions the Chancellor is assisted by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is thus concerned with the general economic policy and planning, including the economic aspects of Treasury supply work, overseas financial negotiations and internal financial planning. Both the Financial Secretary


and the Economic Secretary, therefore, play a part, under the Chancellor, in the formation of general financial and taxation policy.
The Central Planning Staff under Sir Edwin Plowden, and the staff of the former office of the Minister for Economic Affairs, retain their identity, but now form part of the Treasury organisation, and discharge their general co-ordinating functions under the direction of the Chancellor. They maintain close touch with the Economic Section of the Cabinet Office which, however, will remain part of the Cabinet Office and will continue to provide a service for Ministers generally.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer continues to be responsible, as he was when Minister for Economic Affairs, for the National Production Advisory Council on Industry, and the regional boards for industry.
The Economic Information Unit retains its previous title and functions but is now incorporated in the Treasury and, like the planning staff, provides its interdepartmental services under the Chancellor's direction. In addition to providing a general economic information service, it now provides information on financial subjects previously dealt with by the Treasury public relations officer. This title has been abolished. Its holder will, however, continue to provide information do Civil Service subjects as a member of the Treasury General Establishments Division, and will work in close conjunction with the Economic Information Unit.

Major Legge-Bourke: While thanking the Prime Minister for the fullness of his answer, may I ask whether he can give an assurance that, as a result of the creation of the office mentioned in the Question, there is no conflict with the decision taken in 1944 to separate the Foreign Service from the rest of the Civil Service, with particular reference to the Economic Section of the Foreign Office?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will see, if he studies my answer, that the Foreign Office does not come into it at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the statement which we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the statement which he

promised to make in reply to a Question by me on 15th December last about the general economic planning arrangements of the Government?

The Prime Minister: It is in reply to a Question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).

WELSH AFFAIRS

Mr. S. O. Davies: asked the Prime Minister, in view of the excessive burden of work now imposed on Parliament, resulting increasingly in the delegation of powers to outside unrepresentative persons and bodies, if he will take immediate steps to devolve upon the people of Wales such powers as shall permit them the control and management of their own domestic affairs, and to establish the necessary machinery for that purpose.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The Government are satisfied that the special problems of the Welsh people can best be dealt with within the existing Parliamentary framework.

Mr. Davies: I would ask the Prime Minister most seriously whether he does not realise that the reply which he has just given will be regarded as a calculated affront by the Welsh people?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend underestimates the understanding of the Welsh people of the problems involved in devolution.

Mr. Davies: Will the Prime Minister answer this question? When, at any time, has he revealed even an average understanding of the people of Wales?

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will convene a Welsh Economic Conference for the regular exchange of information and trends in Welsh economic affairs and to confer with a responsible Minister on questions of economic importance in Wales; and whether he will set up a committee of inquiry into Welsh affairs generally.

The Prime Minister: I assume that the Question has been prompted by the Scottish arrangements outlined in the recent White Paper. Hon. Members will appreciate, I am sure, that there are considerable differences between the circumstances of Scotland and Wales, but the


Government will be prepared to examine, with appropriate consultations, whether, and if so to what extent, the administrative proposals in the Scottish White Paper could usefully be applied to Wales. The answer to the last part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Prime Minister aware that his assumption is correct and that there is widespread dissatisfaction in Wales at what appears to be more satisfactory treatment for Scotland, in that she is given greater control of her own affairs? Can he indicate when the examination of the problem will take place which he has promised in his reply to my Question?

The Prime Minister: As soon as we can get down to it. I cannot give the day or the week, but I am promising these consultations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that there is a difference between the Scottish and the Welsh position, owing to the different code of law obtaining in Scotland.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Prime Minister promise to examine the problem during his next holiday in North Wales?

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the hon. Member aware that Scotland is a nation and that Wales is only a Principality?

STEEL PRIORITY SCHEME (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Erroll: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for the Steel Priority Scheme.

The Prime Minister: General questions connected with the arrangements for the limited use of priority symbols to implement steel allocations, which were announced by the Paymaster-General on 20th November, should be addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, under whose supervision the inter-departmental machinery for the allocation of steel supplies operates. Individual authorisations for the use of the priority symbol in accordance with these arrangements are the responsibility of the various Departments concerned.

Mr. Erroll: Does the Prime Minister think that this form of divided control is likely to be effective?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is a divided control.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister's answer that the promise made by the Lord President of the Council in August of last year about priority of steel for agriculture will now commence to be honoured?

The Prime Minister: It has been honoured for some time.

CABINET MINISTERS (AIR TRAVEL)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister for what reason a special aircraft is being ordered for his use and that of the Cabinet; what is the estimated capital cost and the annual operating cost; and why it is not possible for members of the Cabinet either to travel by B.E.A.C., B.E.A.C. or a charter company.

The Prime Minister: As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 6th February, 1947, two Tudor III's have been ordered, not for the exclusive use of myself and the Cabinet, but also for other important persons, delegations and their staffs, trade missions, etc., travelling by air in order to enable them to fulfil their official duties. The revised estimate of the capital cost is £155,000 per aircraft. The annual cost will depend on the extent of their use, but it is expected to be less than the expenditure involved by chartering special aircraft, either from the Corporations or from charter companies.
As regards the last part of the Question, the Corporations' services are used, as far as possible, within the limitation of the routes operated by them, but for reasons of security and speed in the despatch of public business, as well as the convenience of ordinary passengers on the commercial aircraft, it is impossible to rely only upon aircraft provided at present by the Corporations or charter companies.

Mr. Gammans: Before incurring this very large capital expenditure and these indefinite running expenses did the Government ask charter companies to tender a price, or was any attempt whatsoever


made to find an alternative way of doing what might be very necessary work more cheaply?

The Prime Minister: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

Mr. Hale: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very great pleasure his announcement will give in Oldham where these aeroplanes are made, and that its value to the British aircraft industry is incalculable compared with the very small cost involved?

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Did the Cabinet take this decision upon the advice of the Minister of Civil Aviation?

The Prime Minister: The Minister of Civil Aviation was fully consulted.

LAW OF LIBEL (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Attorney-General when the Committee on the Law of Libel is likely to present its Report.

Mr. Wilson Harris: asked the Attorney-General when the Report of Lord Porter's committee on the law of defamation, appointed in 1939, is likely to he issued.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): The preparation of this Report has been unavoidably delayed; however, the draft is now almost complete and will, I understand, be presented before long.

Mr. Harris: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this is a quite elephantine period of gestation? Can it be accounted for in any way?

The Attorney-General: Yes, there has been a concatenation of circumstances for which nobody is to blame, and for which the Government are in no way responsible, and which unfortunately have delayed the final adoption of the Report; but I am told it will not now be long.

Mr. Harris: Is it likely to arrive in the course of the next decade?

Mr. Driberg: As soon as the Report is received, will the Government proceed to consider the changes in the law made necessary by the result of the Gaunt case?

The Attorney-General: We shall have to consider the Report.

MISSING TUDOR IV AIRCRAFT (INQUIRY)

Air-Commodore Harvey: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will make a statement regarding the missing Tudor aircraft of British South American Airways Corporation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I regret to inform the House of the loss of the British South American Airways Corporation's Tudor IV aircraft G—AHNP on a flight from the Azores to Bermuda on the morning of Friday last, 30th January. The machine carried 25 passengers and 6 crew.
I am sure I am expressing the feelings of the whole House when, on behalf of my noble Friend and myself, I extend profound sympathy to the families of the passengers and crew of the aircraft.
A preliminary investigation has already begun, and an Inspector of Accidents left for the Azores immediately. A Public Inquiry will be held into the loss of this aircraft. My noble Friend is seeking the technical advice of the Air Registration Board in the light of such information as may he available. Meanwhile, the Tudor IV aircraft will not be used for the scheduled service due to leave along this route tomorrow.

Air-Commodore Harvey: In joining the Minister in his message of sympathy, and not wishing to detract anything from the possible merits of this aircraft, may I ask him two questions? The first is, were or were not proving flights carried out on the route before passengers were carried? Secondly, has he satisfied himself that the aircraft carried sufficient fuel in case of emergency to reach another base?

Mr. Lindgren: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member will agree that those are two questions vital to an inquiry, and I think it would be wrong for me to give an expression of opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—pending that inquiry taking place.

Mr. George Ward: Can the Minister say whether all hope has now been abandoned of finding this aircraft?

Mr. Lindgren: I am afraid that hope Ls very slight indeed. I would like to express appreciation of the willing help given by everyone to try and trace what can be traced of the aircraft.

Mr. Gammans: But surely the Minister can answer that first supplementary question—had proving flights taken place over that route or not?

Mr. Lindgren: Those, surely, are questions for the inquiry.

Hon. Members: No.

Commander Noble: But could not the Minister answer the second supplementary question from my hon. and gallant Friend?

Mr. Teeling: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that no further flights in the same type of aircraft will take place until something—

Hon. Members: He has said so.

Mr. Lindgren: I have already indicated that, pending the advice of the Air Registration Board, the aircraft due to fly tomorrow has been withdrawn from service.

Mr. Erroll: But can the Minister say how the question of proving flights having been carried out, or not, can affect an inquiry into an individual accident?

Mr. Lindgren: A contributory cause of an accident may be insufficient crew training and it may be that the aircraft was not sufficiently tried before being put into service. Answers to such questions as the hon. and gallant Member put would give some indication of an expression of opinion—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that surely, is a matter for an inquiry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and an establishment of fact.

Brigadier Head: Would the Minister say if it is the policy of the Ministry to open up airlines without carrying out proving flights?

Mr. Lindgren: The Ministry does not run scheduled services. The running of scheduled services has, by Parliament, been delegated under the Civil Aviation Act to the three Corporations responsible. The general standard of training and the aircraft flown are matters for the Boards of those Corporations.

Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there are 20 Questions down for the Minister of Agriculture, and none of them have been reached, would it be possible to give a tiny extension of time in view of the great importance of agriculture?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.28 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
The principal object of this Bill is to amend the law relating to the practice of collecting premiums for insurance against funeral expenses. This practice is, of course, a very old one and now a very extensive one. It is, I suppose, rooted in the fear which has overshadowed the lives of the poor for many generations that unless some sort of provision of this kind is made, they may be buried by the parish, which to thousands of people is the last and unforgivable disgrace. For many years, therefore, in fact for over a century, this kind of assurance, known as industrial assurance, has been carried on partly by companies and partly by friendly societies. I have here a few figures which show its extent. They are not, I am afraid, up-to-date figures but they are sufficiently up-to-date to give the House some idea of the size of the things with which this Bill deals.
In 1939 there were 103 million policies of industrial assurance in force—more than 2¼ policies for every man, woman and child in Britain. The sums assured amounted to £1,668 million and the assurance funds to £455 million. The amount paid in claims on death was £24 million, and the amount paid in claims on maturity was nearly £11½ million. The premiums received—and I would like the House to note this—were over £74 million, and this £74 million was built up of pennies, sixpences and shillings collected, for the most part, week by week from a large proportion of the households in Britain. The magnitude of this type of business, therefore, should not be underestimated.
Before I go any further, I should perhaps explain that what we mean by industrial assurance, as distinct from ordinary assurance, is that form of assurance in which the premiums are collected at intervals of less than two months.

Normally they are collected weekly and often the amount that passes is little more than a few pence. It will be readily realised that freedom for any individual to insure another in this direction has its dangers, especially where the life covered is that of a small child. Parliament has therefore thought it necessary from time to time to regulate the work of those engaged in this type of activity, and the regulations are embodied in a number of Acts of Parliament. Some think that this regulation has not gone far enough, as those of us who were in the House with the late Sir Arnold Wilson and remember some of his speeches, or writings, will remember. He and others were stern critics of some of the methods employed by certain organisations engaged in this form of activity.
Be that as it may, I must make it clear that the main purpose of this Measure is not to meet the criticisms which have been made, although, incidentally, some of them, I hope, will be dealt with by some of the provisions of this Bill. Its chief object is to bring certain kinds of industrial assurance into line with the provisions of the National Insurance Act, 1946. Under that Measure, a death grant is among the benefits which will be paid to those who satisfy the necessary contribution conditions. That Act will not come into full operation yet. Some of its provisions will come into operation on 5th July next, and others, the payment of the death grant in particular, will not do so until a year later. The death benefit is a grant to meet funeral expenses, and the rules under which it can be paid are laid down in Section 22 of the Act.
In ordinary life assurance a man is not normally regarded as having an insurable interest in anyone but his own wife and, of course, himself. In industrial assurance, on the other hand, it is lawful to insure the funeral expenses of a parent, grandparent, child, or grandchild, or even a brother or sister. Offices concerned have construed this power as enabling them to insure any of those categories for an amount that would be reasonable to cover funeral expenses, and to pay that sum to the policyholder on proof of death of the life assured, without further inquiry as to whether the amount handed over would or would not be expended on funeral expenses. I am sure the, right hon. and learned Member for


West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) will know that there are weighty grounds for doubting whether the offices in so proceeding are not exceeding their powers. Perhaps, unfortunately, the matter has never been tested in the courts, and it would not be profitable for me to go into the legal arguments for and against, upon which this doubt is based. I hope that it is sufficient for me to say that it exists, and has never been resolved. What is important is that, if the doubt does exist now, it will increase to a greater degree when the National Insurance Act, 1946, takes effect. It is time that Parliament took cognisance of this matter and put it right.
The second reason for legislation is to maintain the limits on the sums payable on the death of children under the age of 10. These amounts, for obvious reasons, have been strictly limited up to now, whether the insurance was taken out by a parent, or in the name of the child insured. The limits at present are £6 payable on the death of a child up to three, £10 on a child dying under the age of six, and £15 when a child dies under the age of TO. These ages and amounts are embodied in the Act of 1946. From 5th July, 1949, death grants up to those amounts will be payable under the Act, subject of course to the conditions governing the contributions, and they will be paid on the death of children born on or after 5th July this year. Consequently, there will no longer be room for a voluntary insurance in these cases, unless it is the will of Parliament that insurance of this kind should be allowed on a voluntary basis in order to bring in a higher amount than the maximum that Parliament has in the past thought allowable.
As to the form of approach which the Bill makes to this matter, Clause r terminates all existing powers of industrial assurance offices and friendly societies to insure for funeral expenses. We have wiped the slate clean in Clause r. The date when these powers cease will be 5th July, 1949. The cessation of these powers will not prejudice in any way any insurances effected while the powers are in force. Having wiped the slate clean, the question arises what powers, if any, should we give to friendly societies and offices engaged in this type of assurance for the future? What relatives, for example, should be insur-

able, and for how much? The Government think that as only one death grant will be payable on a death, and as more than one person in a family may be involved in expenses connected with the funeral, it is reasonable that a limited amount of extra voluntary insurance shall be permissible. For example, although I am glad to think that mourning clothes as such are gradually going out of fashion, nevertheless, some people still desire to wear them, and even if they do not go into mourning in the old fashioned way, other expenses are incurred, such as travelling to the funeral, loss of wages for attending the funeral, and so on.
Therefore the Government feel that a certain amount of voluntary insurance should be allowed in addition to the one death grant, which is payable when a death occurs. That being so, it would be logical to restrict these insurances to the contingency of the policyholder surviving the life assured, but I am told that, if we tried to enact such a provision there would be considerable difficulties in carrying it out. We have cast about to see how we can achieve much the same effect in some other way. We hope to achieve the same result by restricting the "life of another" insurance, apart from that of husband and wife, to the relationships where the life assured belongs to an older generation than that of the proposer. We therefore propose that these policies should be confined to the insurance of parents, step-parents and grandparents. That wipes out the right which now exists to insure children, or brothers and sisters.
We also propose to limit the amount receivable under such insurance to £15 exclusive of bonuses, except, of course, of guaranteed bonuses. In order that there shall be no misunderstanding, I will give an example of what the Bill seeks to do—

Mr. Bowles: My right hon. Friend mentions step-parents. I do not see it clearly stated in the Clause. Is there some definition of a parent, including a step-parent?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I understand that the Bill does include step-parents. That is a Committee point, and we will look into it again, but when we were discussing the measure in the Department I was


given to understand that parent included step-parent.
May I give an example of how this will work? Supposing there are two brothers A and B, who have a father C. if A insures in two different offices the life of his father for £10 in each case, he would clearly be going outside the scope of this Bill. His total insurance money, which he would receive on the death of his father, would be £20, whereas we propose £15 as a limit. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent, and we do not propose to prevent, brother B from also insuring his father so long as neither of them insures above the limit of £15 which is laid down.
These policies are not to be assigned, but we make one proviso in that direction. It is possible that a man may take out a policy on the life of his parent and find that, through falling out of work or for some other reason, he cannot keep up the premiums. If he cannot do that and no provision is made to assist him, he will lose the premiums which he has already paid. Therefore we provide in the Bill that where a case of that kind occurs, although the policy may not be generally assignable, it shall be lawful for it to be assignable up to the limit of any premiums which have been paid by someone else on behalf of the policy holder.
In wiping the slate clean in Clause r, we also destroy the rights of a friendly society to insure a member's husband or wife for funeral expenses, but we have no desire to do that. Therefore, in Clause 3 we put this power back without limit, other than that applying generally to insurances by friendly societies. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was pressed to increase the gross sum for which a registered friendly society might insure. He then indicated that in his view a case had been made out, and that he would see what could be done. He thought, and I think the House will agree, that this was a reasonable request. The £300 which is now the limit was laid down in 1908, when the value of money was different from what it is now. It did appear to him, therefore, and I hope it will be agreed by the House, that some higher limit is desirable.

Sir Arthur Salter: Does that change have any effect on the

Income Tax liabilities of the societies in question?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited, I should have reached that point in a few minutes. The query is pertinent and I will deal with it. I was, about to say that the £300 limit has been increased to £500 in Clause 5 of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, this change has its repercussions. A friendly society must be debarred, either by statute or by its own rules, from insuring for more than £300 if it desires to have exemption from Income Tax. Clause 5 of the Bill as drafted does nothing to increase the limit of that exemption. This has caused some misunderstanding, and I believe that circular letters have been sent to every Member of Parliament on the matter. It has been argued in that circular letter that the Government intend to rob friendly societies of the rights of exemption which they now enjoy. This, of course, is not true. The reason why the exemption has not been raised in this Bill is that this is not the place to do it. It has to be done in a Finance Bill. It has all along been the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the next Finance Bill is put before the House, to include therein a provision to grant exemption from Income Tax up to the new limit of £500. Meanwhile, to set all doubts at rest I propose, when we reach the Committee stage of this Bill, to move an Amendment on behalf of the Government declaring that Clause 5 and the increase in the limits there set forth, shall not come into operation until the next Finance Bill containing the new limits also begins to operate.
Another provision of the Bill which has aroused some criticism is that which prevents the right of registered societies to invest with the National Debt Commissioners at 2¾ per cent., and provides for the repayment of the money so invested. Here again I believe that Members of Parliament have been circularised by certain organisations on the grounds that this is an unfair provision and one which will hit friendly societies very hard. The continuance of this right for money to be at call would be inconsistent with the cheap money policy of the Government. We had no desire whatever to injure friendly societies when we made this pro


vision. As a matter of fact, the amount of money deposited in this way with the National Debt Commissioners is a relatively small sum. It amounts to little more than £7 million, and 90 per cent. of that is owned by one friendly society. As for the provision that this money will be repaid, the Government have no intention of being at all stringent or unreasonable, and the money will be repaid over a period of 3½ years. At the present moment those who have this money at call can withdraw it at very short notice, at the most three or four days. At 2¾ per cent. that represents an advantage to those who have invested their money in this way. There is no reason why the burden and expense of this should continue to be borne by the taxpayer at large.
The Bill also makes a number of minor changes which, with the permission of the House, I will not elaborate now. Some of them will undoubtedly be dealt with in the Committee, and also in the present Debate. If any of them are raised, the Attorney-General will be happy to deal with them. Power is taken in this Bill to regulate the form and use of premium receipt books, about which there has been, in the minds of some agents, a great deal of misunderstanding, much of it quite unfounded. The delivery of policies and rules by registered societies, the audit of accounts and the manner in which that should take place, the preservation of the rights of members who go into the Services, and warranties as to statements made in good faith about the health of the life proposed and other matters are dealt with in the Bill. No doubt they will be touched upon during the Debate. We think that our suggestions are reasonable. Some of them are long overdue and none of them is oppressive. I hope that they will commend themselves to the House.

4.0 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I am sure that everyone in the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his lucid explanation of this Measure. Although at first sight the subject does not appear to be one of primary political importance, I think that those of us who are here realise how important it is in the day to day life of a large section of the community. Speaking on this point for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General

as well as for myself, I would say that it is particularly interesting to those who spent their early working years in Liverpool where these forms of insurance are very popular. We have a great personal interest not only in the people who are insured but in those who carry on from day to day the work of making this great system run. I myself, if I may admit it, have the additional personal sympathy in that I am one of those distressful people who find it very difficult to save unless they put themselves under some form of compulsion. Therefore, I feel the importance it has for those who share my state of mind.
I should like to take up one or two of the points which the right hon. Gentleman has shown to he of importance and on which there may be some conflict of view. The first point I ask the House to consider is the exclusion of brothers and sisters from the provisions of insurance. I hope that hon. Members will not think that I am treating the matter at too great length if I indicate very shortly the background as I see it, because it seems relevant in considering this point. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, it was in 1909 that the right to issue policies of insurance for the purpose of ensuring money to be paid in funeral expenses was first given a legal basis by Section 36 of the Assurance Company Act of that year. Of course, it was well known—I think that it has been stated several times in this House—that before that time there were in force a large number of policies which were in fact "life of another" policies. But the provision of that Act was that the policy was not to be deemed void by reason only of the fact that the person effecting it had not an insurable interest in the life of the person assured.
I think that the Attorney-General would agree with me that in this context "insurable interest" is simply the happening of the event which will cause the person insured to incur liability. That is the material aspect of "insurance interest" which comes into this problem. I should like the Attorney-General to note and to remember the effective conditions of legislation under the Act of 1909. There were two. First, there was the existence of a bona fide expectation that he would incur expenses in connection with the death or funeral of the assured. Second, there was the fact that the sum assured should not be unreasonable for


the purpose of meeting those expenses. These conditions were kept in the further statutory provisions of 1923 and 1929.
My information about how it worked in practice, like the right hon. Gentleman's, is not quite up to date, but it is current information. It is that most of the companies made the limit of £25 for parents, sons and daughters, and £15 for other permitted relatives, and that the average amount paid was £17 where the policy holder was a parent, son or daughter, and £10 for other relatives. Those are the individual amounts. The further figure which ought to be remembered is that the average total amount for each death was in the region of £30 to £35. I do not think that there will be any serious dispute that that is the range of figures with which we are dealing.
I am sure that everyone perceives that, when the State is paying £20 as death benefit, there will not be the same burden in connection with the payment for the funeral. But, of course, there will be the expenses which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned—apart from mourning—of travelling and the loss of earnings which undoubtedly are occasioned in many cases by going to the funeral. The difficulty I see is in making any distinction between these expenses, and their rightness, in the case of the death of a brother or sister, and expenses in the case of the death of somebody of an anterior generation, such as a parent or grandparent. I ask the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues if they will consider that point. I am trying to approach the matter dispassionately bearing in mind the history of how this legislation came into being. If we are to consider the realities of the matter—that is that people who can ill afford it are put to a certain amount of expense on these sorrowful occasions—then it seems to be right that there is a sound case for keeping in brothers and sisters.
I would like the Attorney-General to let us know the views which the Government have formed about how these limitations will work out in practice. One must try to envisage what will actually happen and what will be the circumstances of the people who are ex hypothesi not well off when they have to deal with this drawing of the amount limited to £15. If

they have more than one policy in operation, which, as I understand it would take them over the £15, they would get their premiums back in respect of the other policies. That, of course, will require some machinery. What I am anxious about is that if—as I am sure they will—the offices found some clearing house machinery or some method of that kind for dealing with it, that will not be reflected on the insured in higher premiums, and equally that the insurer will not be met by delays. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that there is nothing which is so worrying or so bad as people being met with delays just after a death in the house. They are mentally less fitted to deal with the matter at that time than they are at any other.
Therefore, I hoped that the Government might, by discussion with those administering this form of insurance, have found some system, like the death certificate system, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is operated in the case of the limited child's policy which he put before us so clearly. Prior to that, the registrar put on the certificate the name of the company and the amount. I hoped something of that kind might be introduced in this case so that all that would happen is that the insured person would have to pay for the copy of the death certificate. It would then be very easy to work it out and prevent the very small number of cases—do not let us get them out of proportion, because it is a small number—where there is a possibility of fraud. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able either to give us some guidance as to what would happen, or, at any rate, promise the House that that very practical point will receive consideration.
I hope that hon. Members will not consider my next point a Committee point, but it is one that has given me some worry. It is the question of the regulations under Clause 7, because there is power to make regulations. I hope again that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may be able to tell us either that these regulations will not apply, or that special provisions will be made to soften their application to existing policies. Otherwise, they may well provide very onerous, difficult and expensive administrative tasks for the


offices, without any compensating advantage to the policy holder in the case of existing policies. In many cases they are working extremely well, and I view with certain apprehension the fact that they should not only be placed under statutory obligation, but be made criminally liable of creating an offence under Clause 13 (2) unless great alterations are made.
There is one other point which is complementary to the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has given, and I am sure he may like them to be before the House. He gave figures as to the quantity of insurance. My information, which is fairly recent, is that there has been a great reduction in the lapsing of policies during the last few years. In 1935 the percentage was 8.6; in 1940 that had come down to 5.2, and in 1945 to 2.4 I think that shows that one of the complaints which Sir William Beveridge and others have made with regard to this form of insurance has been met.

Mrs. Braddock: People are better off now financially.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfc: Obviously the hon. Lady has dealt with one aspect of it, but she will see that the figures I have given show a clear improvement from 1935. There is a clear improvement over a period of 10 years. In addition to the aspect which the hon. Lady mentioned, there is also the aspect that this form of insurance cannot now be said to be over-pushed at people, if the fact is taken into account that the lapsing is as low as 2.4 per cent.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: In order to help us, could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the figures he gave cover the whole of this field, or only the policies issued by the friendly societies?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I understood the whole of the field. I will check that for the right hon. Gentleman, but that is my recollection.

Mr. Mack: The observation made by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) was perfectly true. There has been an improvement, What I take it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to emphasise is that, over and above that, as a result of the efforts of all the offices to put their house in order, they

have helped materially still further to reduce the lapses.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That was the point, and I think it is a fair one. Criticism of this form of insurance has been the number of lapses. It is when one finds a steady improvement in the number of lapses over a period of 10 years that one may fairly say that that particular criticism is much less well founded than it ever was. The other point which I think should, in fairness to those who conduct this form of insurance be placed before the House, is the question of the expense ratio. In 1920 it was 44.6 per cent.; in 1935, 33.2 per cent., and in 1945, 29.3 per cent. That is not taking into account the point which has so often been made that that is a very strict expense ratio in that it takes in Income Tax and dividends on the one side and does not take in the gross interest and add to it the premiums on the other side. That is the standard answer to it. Despite the fact of the greater service, we can see a very considerable and general reduction in the expense ratio.

Mr. Daines: The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the figure of 29.3 per cent. Is that for the whole of the industrial offices for expenses in 1945?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: It is for a fair range of them. I am not sure it is every one, but it is at the same range in each case, and I think it is a pretty fair range. I will check that point and inform the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mack: That figure may roughly be taken to be the true figure for all the principal offices and friendly societies, that is, the companies and friendly societies?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is my recollection. It may be taken as general. If it is not the absolute total, it is representative of the complete position.
With regard to the friendly societies, the main points which are for the consideration of the House are the increase in the benefit allowed to be paid on the death of a member, and the question of the investment. The right hon. Gentleman gave the friendly societies rather a fright by the original form of the Bill, because the fear was expressed, as he


knows, that they were not going to apply Section 39 (1) of the Income Tax Act to the increased amount, but the Amendment which I see on the Order Paper deals with that position, and I am very glad to feel that the difficulty has been rectified. May I say this to the right hon. Gentleman? His former colleague, I understand, appreciated this problem and expressed his conversion to that view after lunching with one of the great societies which come from my part of the world, and the right hon. Gentleman was with him. May I only say that I hope that he, in turn, will lunch frequently and well, and that, every time he does so, there will be some improved result on the statute book?

Mr. Daises: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the expense ratio of this particular office?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I could not tell the hon. Member that; I do not know how much it is, but I assure him that I was not suggesting that the lunch which the right hon. Gentleman obtained swelled the expense ratio so much that it brought it out of line.
The other point which I am afraid is not so satisfactory concerns Clause 16 and the question of the investments. I think it is only proper that the right hon. Gentleman should have this in mind. It is now a period of 52 years since this right was put in operation. Section 44 of the Act of 1896 gave them that right, and, as the Bill stands, it is possible for the National Debt Commissioners to force the friendly societies to withdraw at Short notice the £7 million which they have. There is also the position of the larger sums which they have with the Post Office and Trustee Saving Banks. The right hon. Gentleman has disclaimed any desire to hurt the friendly societies or to force them to any particular form of investment; at any rate, so I construe the speech which he has just delivered. In these circumstances, I have great difficulty in appreciating his argument why this right should be taken away. I could understand the argument—although, even put that way, I would not agree with it—that friendly societies should not be given the right to invest on a short-term basis at 2¼ per cent., or whatever it may be, when the

Government can borrow elsewhere at a lesser amount, but I do not think that that is really the whole of the story.
These societies have been going for a number of years and have provided special encouragement to people to save and to let their thrift grow in this particular way. Therefore, even if it stood alone, the fact that they were on rare occasions given the chance to get 2¼ per cent. on short-term loans would not, in my view, be a matter which would worry me very much. As I understand the position, however, and it is certainly put quite clearly in the circular to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the National Debt Commissioners are protected as regards withdrawals by societies, for, under Section 52 (6) of the Act of 1896, any society which withdraws money can be refused further investments by the Commissioners. In that case, it seems to me that the position of the National Debt Commissioners is secured, and the position is made quite clear that this cannot be utilised as a recurring practice.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and learned Friend who is to reply will consider this matter again. The whole House appreciates that the case has been stated today with moderation, but, of course, it so very often happens that the case for a Bill is stated with moderation but the terms remain capable of immoderate use, and, therefore, I do not think we are being unreasonable if we ask for a reconsideration of that point. Generally, I am very glad that the position of the friendly societies has been dealt with, and that, on the Whole, subject to the point which I have made, their position has been maintained. When we look back into their history, we find that they are a unique institution in the world—unique to our own country. They have been copied in the Dominions, but, generally, it is our friendly societies which have shown this way to mutual assistance to many people with little money, and I believe that, looking back over their records, it is one of which they and the country can be proud.
I myself have never had the misgivings which some people have expressed with regard to this form of insurance, so long as there are these reasonable rules under which it operates. I have, all my life, known the agents who work it, both in my professional career, when I have sometimes acted for them and sometimes


against them, and in the daily life of Liverpool, and I think they have done a good job over a long period. In saying that I shall advise my hon. Friends not to oppose this Bill. I would also like to send a message of good will to them and of good luck in their work.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Mack: It is quite a pleasure to follow two such moderate and closely-reasoned speeches, even though the two right hon. Gentlemen in question have not themselves the advantage of haying had practical personal experience of the business. As the House may know, I have been an insurance agent, as, indeed, have one or two of my hon. Friends, for a number of years, but, what is perhaps more pertinent, I speak now as the official representative of a considerable number of organised workers in the industry, and, I am sure, the House will be very anxious to know the reactions of the workers interested in this Bill.
While it is very difficult to give the exact number, there are about 65,000 of these workers, which is a fairly formidable figure, and my particular organisation, the National Amalgamated Union of Insurance Workers, has earned the reputation of being, perhaps, rather Left in its political attitude and somewhat vigorous in advocating for years the nationalisation of this business. I realise that this is not the subject under discussion now, but I want to say, in passing, to my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, greatly as I respect him—and he knows a great deal about this matter—that I will not be satisfied, nor will a great many people in this country be satisfied, unless and until the Government take over what is, after all, a very large business intimately affecting the whole population of this country.

Mr. Oliver Poole: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman on that point? He has claimed that there are 65,000 workers engaged in the industry, and he has claimed to represent a proportion of them. Would it not be right for him to make clear what is the approximate number of the 65,000 which he claims to represent?

Mr. Mack: I do not think that would have very much effect upon my argument,

and I ought to say in answer to it that, unfortunately, the organised workers of this industry have been divided into quite a number of organisations, some of which, I regret to say, have been buttressed by the companies, and have been in the nature of house unions, but, from a strictly trade union point of view, I can claim to represent a fairly considerable proportion. I can even go further and say that, as far as my own sentiments in regard to this Bill are concerned, I represent a good number of those not actually in my own union, but who are in kindred organisations in the business.
I remember at one Labour Party Conference—I mention this because it shows that the party have never given much attention to this matter; they have been dismally and abysmally ignorant of its many aspects—a certain lady, the late Miss Mary Carlin, was asked to answer a case on behalf of the Executive. In a private conversation with that dear lady—and I hope I am saying nothing ungenerous or discourteous—she confessed to me that she knew very little about the subject. I took the opportunity to give her some advice, and offered to reconstruct her case, an offer which she readily accepted. Apparently, this alarming information got to the ears of other members of the Executive, and when I went into the conference chamber the following morning expecting to hear her make a case along the lines I had suggested, I found a very different point of view put up by the Labour Party. That showed that they were confused and divided on the subject.
What is the effect of this Bill on the organised worker? First, as my right hon. Friend said in his opening speech, it reduces the amount by which a child can insure a parent or a grandparent to £15. It prevents the insurance of children under 10. Of course, that is covered by the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance. It prevents the insurance of the brother by the sister, and vice versa. It takes away the right of the parent to insure the child, in the case of a child over 10, and the grandchild can no longer insure the grandparent. The agents in this business are already losing between 5s. and 20s. a week of the income they earn, as the result of operating the National Health part of the business. That is a very con-


siderable loss to the agents, and for which they are to receive no compensation whatever.
Not only that; they have also to face the fact that when the Minister of National Insurance comes along in the middle of this year and asks for 4s., 5s., or 6s. a week from the average individual as a contribution to the great scheme which he is putting before the nation, that will reduce the amount that people would normally have available in tile ordinary way for additional insurance purposes, and will unfavourably affect the earnings of the agents. It is true that, in the case of the societies, the figure has been raised from £300 to £500, but, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite will be aware, the real value of money today is so reduced that the purchasing power of £500 would be scarcely any more than that of the £300 before the war. After all, that is a very vital and important factor.
On the question of the insurance of the life of another, which is a very important part of this business, it is very difficult to say what proportion of an agent's earnings is accounted for by policies of that description. I have some very interesting figures here which were culled from page 267 of the Beveridge Report, in which a table is given showing the figures for 19 offices, excluding the Prudential and the Co-operative Insurance Society, in March, 1942. A child assuring a parent was discovered to account for 44 per cent. of all the new policies taken out at that time. A parent assuring a child was found to account for 5 per cent., a brother assuring a sister and a sister assuring a brother, taken together, 5½ per cent., and a grandchild assuring a grandparent, 2 per cent., making, in all, a total of over half the new third-party policies issued.
It is quite true that, under Clause 2 of this Bill, one is entitled to assure a parent up to a sum not exceeding £15, but a considerable amount of that 44 per cent. of policies, where the child assures a parent, would obviously have been for a sum exceeding £15. I have estimated, at a very rough computation—and here again it is very difficult to give the exact number of policies under this head—that possibly from 25 to 35 per cent. are "life of another" policies, and, to that extent, it

would mean a considerable reduction in the earnings of the agents.
The field staff has also to consider another great loss—the question of book interest. I admit that is an intangible factor, but it is a matter of very great concern to the agents because in many cases they have expended the whole of their life savings in order to acquire a book. If the value of those books falls, the agents will be Very hard hit financially, and, without doubt, grave distress will be occasioned. I am sorry to say that I regard this Bill as one which prods, probes and pinpricks the agents. The Government seem to be willing to wound and yet afraid to strike, and they would appear from the words of my right hon. Friend, to be trying to patch up some of the anomalies and incongruities which evidently still exist in industrial assurance.
I would say that it is a pettifogging, pernickety and puerile Measure of peevish legislation which is not worthy of the Government, and I hope that, on the Committee stage, some of my hon. Friends on this side, and even some hon. Members opposite, will take the opportunity of going more fully into it. If the Government wish to avoid, as I am sure is their intention, the gambling spirit which is alleged to be inherent in insurance, then all I want to say is that they might have taken a more consistent attitude when dealing with social problems like pools, dog-racing and betting, which involve far more money as far as gambling is concerned, and which are far more open to criticism on ethical and moral grounds.
I suggest that under Clause 2, the limit of £15 should be increased to, say £25. In these days, £15 is a very small amount of money; it might purchase what £8 or £9 did before the war. If reasonable expenses—and that is the term used,—are to be taken into consideration—or to use another phrase, "expenses of an appreciable amount," which, I think, appeared in one of the Acts, at any rate—there are very many factors to be considered. For example, there has been a wide dispersal of the population. When the father or the mother dies, the son or daughter could be 200 or 300 miles away and might have to travel a considerable distance to the funeral. There is not only travelling, but also the cost of purchasing mourning, a matter which has already


been referred to. Of course, it would not necessarily mean purchasing all new clothing, but one or two articles of apparel which, perhaps, people have not been able to purchase in the ordinary way, and which they feel ought to be renewed at a time of distress and sorrow. Again, many people contribute to a memorial stone, and very often it is the fashion for the members of a family to pool their limited resources in order to pay for some permanent erection of that kind.
Then there are floral bequests. That is also an item which must be taken into consideration. If it is a proper thing for hon. Members to present floral tributes to their sweethearts in their courting days or to prima donnas in the later stages of their life, surely no criticism can be made when one presents flowers as a token of respect to someone who is very dear and near and who has just passed away. Another factor is loss of remuneration, which can be very serious to a man who has to spend two or three days in attending a funeral. Although I realise that insurance is not primarily for that object, nevertheless it is a factor which poor people have to bear very much in mind. There is also the lower purchasing power of the pound, which means that in any case these figures should be subject to revision.
I wish to administer a stricture to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, for whom I have a fond affection. He reminds me of Coleridge's "Ancient Mariner" who fixed somebody with his glittering eye. The language of this Bill should be lucid, apparent and clear to I he average policy-holder. If the average policy-holder, the average industrial insurance agent and the offices are to be subject to penalties, they are entitled to know what the Bill means. I think there is a conspiracy on the part of lawyers to use obscure language. I will read a passage from the Bill, and if any hon. Member in any part of this House can explain it to me in simple language I will lower my head before him in obeisance. In Clause 8 these words appear:
Provided that the preceding provisions of this Section shall not apply to exception on any such ground if the society or company is excepted from liability on that ground apart from those provisions, or to reduction of liability on any such ground so far as liability is reduced on that ground apart from

those provisions, in a case in which the proposer, when making the proposal or at any time thereafter and before the making of the contract, made to the society or company …
tra-la-la—tra-la-la—tra-la—and so it goes on. It is only because I have spent a lifetime in this business that I am able to disentangle this obfuscated verbiage. I think there is a conspiracy on the part of overpaid lawyers to puzzle hon. Members with these jangled and archaic words so that we shall give up the struggle and let the Government get away with it.

Mr. Daines: Perhaps my hon. Friend will now explain to us what those words really mean.

Mr. Mack: What they mean is that if the proposer or the agent fails to disclose the fact that the proposed is in an indifferent state of health, or any other such factor, they are liable to some penalty. I rather gather that is the gist of what it means. Heaven forfend that I should endeavour to be more explicit than that, in case I should find myself still further enmeshed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who is known to be a very unconventional gentleman in many respects and who has revolutionsed neckwear, among other things, might well revolutionise the language of this and other Bills. He would earn imperishable and immemorial fame. He would go down in history as the one man who made the jargon in Government Bills clear and understood by the common people, and, although he might be contemned and despised by many of his learned colleagues, he would earn the eternal blessings of the more simple and honest members of the community.
I wish to deal with Clause 7, which was stated by my right hon. Friend to be a Clause of lesser importance. It is nothing of the sort. It refers to premium receipt books. These books are very important to an agent who has got to do the doorstep work. Many of the new houses do not have nice porticos and a collector often has to stand in the rain to make an entry into his premium book and mark collectively one payment for perhaps half a dozen policies. If he has to take out six premium books and make six entries, it will throw a considerable amount of additional work on him. Apart from that, there is the enormously increased cost of printing paper. I would much sooner see


books of lore and learning printed with the limited available paper than a multiplicity of premium books.
What induced my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to insert a Clause like that? Did he have some private conversation with the associated offices? I have never been consulted on, this matter—a fact which may be due to ignorance, or, in the case of my right hon. Friend the Minister of National Insurance, forgetfulness. I have been completely ignored in this matter, not that it has necessarily made much difference to the final outcome of the Bill; but, at least, I could have expressed the point of view of thousands of outside workers. I knew nothing about it until the Bill was produced. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, the midwife who has evidently assisted in the Bill's birth, is responsible for the legal language. Perhaps he could tell me where he or the Financial Secretary got the inspiration to insert this petty little regulation. On page 5 there is another phrase in which these words appear:
A book used for any policy shall contain a conspicuous statement of the identity of the person who made the proposal for the policy.
I would like to know the meaning of "conspicuous" in this connection. Does it refer to the size of the signature, and in what part of the book is it to be written? If that provision is not obeyed, certain dire penalties may be visited upon the offender. The average agent has far too much work already, without having this kind of stuff added to his worries. He has mental as well as physical anxieties. At the moment he is anxious because the business is in a transitional stage, and he does not know where his future bread and butter are coming from. I know it is fashionable to jeer at insurance men. They are the subject of music-hall mirth, but the fact remains that insurance agents represent a very considerable proportion of the workers in this country, and some of the best elements of the working class have come from their ranks.
Clause 13 relates to offences which may be committed, and says:
Any registered society not being a collecting society which contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Act … shall be guilty of an offence,
and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding

£50. I am particularly concerned with Subsection (3) which says that any collector of a collecting society or industrial assurance company who contravenes or fails to comply with any of the provisions in this Bill, is guilty of an offence under the Act of 1923, and shall again be liable to a fine not exceeding £50. farther on, in line 41, reference is made to the Act of 1896, under which Act proceedings may be commenced as late as three years after the commission of the offence, and the alleged culprit may be in danger of having these penalties visited upon him. I wish that could be made a little clearer.
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) paid a tribute to the collectors. My hon. Friend the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) knows much about the sufferings of the workers in Liverpool and of the difficulties of these agents there, too, and I am sure that we can all find common ground and speak sympathetically on behalf of the workers in this business. There will be opportunities to deal more closely with the Bill in the Committee stage. I hope then we may be able to get some compromise on the Bill. While the Bill does give an increase, in the case of the societies, from £300 to £500, and while the agents as an organised body would not wish to quarrel with the Government, nevertheless, I do say that the Bill fails to deal adequately with this business. I hope, therefore, that we may be able at a subsequent stage to make some adjustments, as a result of Amendments, which will be put down, to ameliorate the situation.
I cannot pay too high a tribute to the industrial insurance agents. All along, in many directions, they have faced great uncertainty, but because of their anxiety to see the Government proceed with their great all-embracing insurance scheme, and because they have great confidence in the Minister of National Insurance, and particular regard for his work, they have submerged their own personal interests and, to a large extent, been prepared to make many sacrifices. I hope that this Bill will not call upon them to make further inordinate sacrifices, and that the attitude of the Ministers responsible for it towards the agents will be one of proper humanity, deeper understanding, and a spirit of sweet reasonableness.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I am sure the insurance agents throughout the country will have an opportunity of reading the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), and they will be most grateful to him for the tribute which he has paid to them. One is naturally glad to think that one who expresses their point of view in the House and is associated with them should have this warm feeling of admiration for them, and I do not doubt that the admiration is mutual. So far as the House is concerned, I think the hon. Gentleman did well to declare at the beginning that he has a special interest in this matter. If I do not in most matters follow his speech in any detail it will be rather because I feel that, in matters of this kind, the interests of the industrial population as a whole should be considered, and not that primarily of the agents.

Mr. Mack: Hear, hear.

Mr. Molson: I was grateful to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for the reference he made to the late Sir Arnold Wilson, and to the great work that he did to ascertain the facts about industrial assurance, and to work for an improvement in this matter. The Financial Secretary has already produced figures to show how immensely great is the premium burden on the wage earners of this country and how great are the sums which they derive from industrial insurance benefits. The book inspired by Sir Arnold Wilson, and written by him and Professor Hermann Levy had, I think, a great deal to do with awakening the public conscience to the importance of this matter. I was reading it again this morning. I regret that Sir Arnold Wilson should have been killed in action during the last war and should not have lived to see come true so much of what he regarded as being the objective of sound social policy. He writes in the foreword:
These and other considerations … have brought us to the conclusion that the present system cannot be mended, but should be ended by being merged with the National Health Insurance system operating for the present through Approved Societies, though these in their turn must one day be reorganised on a national and regional basis by counties and county boroughs, with far greater uniformity of benefits than at present, as part of a genuinely national system of public health.

That was written by Sir Arnold Wilson long before the Beveridge Committee was appointed or had been thought of. He was one of the pioneers who did something to bring about the series of reforms which have been the work of the last Government and of this Government and of the last and of the present Parliaments.
This Bill I regard as belated, necessary, and modest. It is belated because, as the Financial Secretary said in his very lucid and concise introductory speech, ever since the Act of 1909 the practice of industrial assurance has, in fact, largely ignored the rules laid down by Parliament to be observed. Both on the Adjournment once in the last Parliament and again on the Second Reading of the National Insurance Act, I have drawn attention to this matter, and I have urged that something should be done to bring to an end the state of affairs in which Parliament has twice legislated quite plainly on this matter—in the 1909 Act, re-enacted in the Act of 1923—and in which, as was said by the Industrial Commissioner in his evidence before the Cohen Committee, in point of fact, the law was not being observed.
I regard this Bill also as urgently necessary at the present time. As soon as the death grant, which is provided in the National Insurance Act, comes into operation, one half of the sole justification for the insurance of the life of another in the form of industrial assurance will come to an end. It was in 1774 that Parliament in its wisdom decided that there should be no assurance of the life of another in the absence of an insurable interest; and it was in order to meet the special social problem of providing for funeral expenses, in the case of those who had not the financial resources to provide the cost of a funeral at any particular, unforeseen moment, that this wide exception was made in a rule which, for nearly 200 years now, has in the general law of insurance been consistently observed—and, indeed, strengthened by successive Parliaments.
Therefore, this Bill is necessary before, the coming into operation of the death grant. I long doubted whether insurance on the life of another for expenses in connection with a funeral was desirable; but I have again studied the evidence given before the Cohen Committee—who came to the conclusion that there was a


genuine and widespread demand for a facility of that kind—and provided that it is kept within strict limits, as regards both the life that may be assured and the amount that may be spent, I believe it will be a socially beneficial reform.
In the third place, this is an extremely modest Measure. I am inclined to think it is still too modest, for it will cut out only approximately 10 per cent. of the life-of-another assurance policies at present being contracted. It is a rough and ready system. It lays down that, generally speaking, the younger person may assure the life of an older person, but not vice versa; and, subject to the £15 limit, on the whole that will be beneficial.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) referred to Clause 2—which, in the case of each individual descendant, limits the amount assurable upon the life of a particular ascendant to £15—and he raised the very important question, with which I hope the Attorney-General will deal in reply, of having some machinery which will make its effectiveness certain. When we reflect that this Bill is intended to bring to an end a state of affairs in which, for 37 years now, the express and deliberate intention of Parliament has been so widely ignored, it would indeed be disastrous were the new Bill to create a new category of illegal policies. It is right that not mare than £15 should be assured upon the life of one single ascendant. Whether that be so or not, and whether the criticism of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme be accepted or not, there surely will be complete agreement in all parts of the House that it would be extremely undesirable to have a number of insurance policies which, in the event of sudden death, were discovered to be illegal.
Firstly, it would be undesirable that either the proposer or the agent should have that opportunity for fraud. Secondly, it would be undesirable from the point of view of the person taking out the assurance if it came to light that the individual had insured more than £15 upon the particular life, for then one or other, or a part of those insurances would be found to be illegal. From the point of view of the life offices and friendly societies themselves it is, surely, important that there should be effective

machinery in order that they may not be involved unintentionally in the issue of illegal assurances. Therefore, during Committee I intend to put down an Amendment designed to ensure provisions to give effect to the policy of Clause 2.
In Clause 6, there is laid down the principle that, while parents may take out life assurance policies on behalf of their infant children, they shall not be able to draw the insurance money in the event of death under the age of 10. In the long history of industrial assurance legislation, social reformers concentrated very largely upon child assurance. As recently as 1931, when the late Lord Snowden appointed the Cohen Committee to investigate the whole question of industrial assurance, the aspect of child assurance was dealt with in a special provision of the minute of appointment; and approximately one-third of the Cohen Committee's report deals with that matter, for they made rather detailed recommendations in order to prevent abuses. I believe the Government have been right and wise to cut right through those recommendations, and to provide that no money shall be paid in the case of a child dying under the age of 10. No hardship is involved, because the parent is able to take out an assurance on behalf of the child, thereby gaining benefit for a life assurance taken out at an early age.
In all those matters I believe the Bill to be wise and necessary, but at the same time only modest. It is modest because a number of recommendations made by the Cohen Committee are not dealt with in the Bill. In the course of this Debate, it has already become plain that at the present time we lack the information which we ought to have about industrial assurance. Down to 1938 there was an annual report upon this matter; but, as a measure of wartime and postwar economy, the Industrial Assurance Commissioner is not now allowed to produce a report. I fully recognise the importance of paper economy, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider the possibility of allowing the issue in Roneo form of a report which could be made available to those connected with industrial assurance who are anxious to have up-to-date information upon the subject. During the war, statistical summaries were issued, but they did not get as far as the House of Commons Library, unless


they have done so this afternoon. When trying to arrive at the recent figures upon the subject I found they were not available, so I am in the same position as the Financial Secretary in regard to any figures I quote upon the subject—not having the advantages of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme—in having to turn to the Beveridge Report and its appendix.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby was right in referring to two matters, to which the Cohen Committee gave a good deal of attention—although, in the absence of figures, I am not entirely certain that he necessarily drew the right conclusions. We ought to have the figures for which I have asked in order that we may know more about the expenses of management. I do not doubt it is true that, whereas at the time of the Parmoor Committee, who investigated the matter for the years 1912 to 1917, the cost of administration of this form of assurance was 41 per cent. of the premiums paid, by the time the Cohen Committee was investigating the matter in 1930, that had been brought down to 34 per cent. Even at the present time, there is an immense difference between the cost of administration of different offices, and especially of the collecting societies.
I regard it as a serious omission that nothing is being done to bring the very high expenses of these life offices, and especially the collecting societies, down more nearly to the level of those who, by means of the block system and rationalisation of their administration, are able to give a very much better service to the people.

Mr. Mack: In making that general statement, will the hon. Member have regard to the fact that, while I am not condoning the relatively high expense ratio, the societies have usually treated their servants and workers better than the companies with the lower expense ratio. In other words, the companies have reduced the ratio at the expense of the agents.

Mr. Molson: It is apparent from the speech of the hon. Member that he is one of those who regard industrial assurance as being conducted primarily for the benefit of the agents.

Mr. Mack: No.

Mr. Molson: I am much more concerned with the interests of those who

pay their humble pence each week. It is the case that some of the collecting societies with the highest ratio of expenses are those where, by means of book interest and so on, the collectors run the whole show. I regard it as one of the most serious abuses in industrial assurance that, in spite of the fact that an agent is not allowed under law to hold a responsible position in running a society, the control of many of the societies is, in fact, in the hands of the agents.

Mr. Mack: I must object to that. The hon. Member is probably speaking in all good faith, but in fact the control of a collecting society is very often operated by the delegate system, that is, by the direct representatives of the policy holders and not by the agents. Surely, the hon. Member is not going to argue that a society is controlled and governed by the agents. That would be most unconstitutional, and it would be unfair to the agents as well as to the other people.

Mr. Molson: It is most unconstitutional, but if the hon. Member will look up some of the evidence given before the Cohen Committee he will find that, broadly speaking, these are the facts.
There has undoubtedly been a very great decrease in the number of lapses, but the fact remains that down to the present time there is no power resting in the Industrial Assurance Commissioner to obtain from the industrial life offices, in contrast with the collecting societies, statistics dealing with this matter. I hope that during the passage of this Bill power will be taken for the Treasury to make rules requiring full disclosure of such facts and figures as they consider to be desirable, in the same way as can be done in the case of the collecting society at the present time. That was one of the recommendations of the Cohen Committee, and this seems to me to be an opportunity to give effect to that recommendation.
Another matter which requires consideration is the distribution of profits. There is a wide difference in practice among different offices in this matter. In the case of the Prudential it was shown in evidence that approximately 75 per cent. of the profits go to the policy holders, 12½ per cent. to the shareholders, and 12½ per cent. to the outdoor staff. I


think I am right in saying that there is no power at the present time to obtain the information, it the life office refuses to give it. In the case of all the committees that have been set up, the companies have always been most frank in giving information, in so far as it was available, but the figures ought to appear in the annual report of the Industrial Assurance Commissioner, and then, if there is need at some later date to legislate, there will be a clear picture of the way in which the business is conducted.
I now come to my last point. Is industrial assurance a good thing? The effect of the State death grant will be to change the whole character of it. I believe that there is, as Sir William Beveridge thought, an immense scope for voluntary assurance in supplementation of the flat-rate benefit given under the compulsory scheme. I see the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) and the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) sitting opposite. I paid a visit with them to France last autumn to investigate the French insurance system. In France, both the contributions and the benefits are in proportion to the ordinary weekly earnings, and therefore to the standard of living of the worker. There are many advantages and disadvantages in the British system. One of the disadvantages of the flat-rate benefit under the compulsory system arises in the case of highly paid workers. In the case of those who are accustomed to higher earnings, there is obviously very great scope for voluntary assurance, so that when death, sickness or some other disaster comes it will not bring about an immense fall in the standard of living, from the relatively high weekly earnings to the relatively low rate of payments under the compulsory National Insurance scheme.
I believe it is possible for industrial assurance to develop into a valuable form of thrift in order to make additional provision for sickness, old age and education. It will be necessary for this House to keep a watchful eye upon industrial assurance in order to see that administration expenses are not too high, that pressure is not being exerted on agents perpetually to be increasing unreasonably the amount of insurance people hold, and that the profits made shall be fairly and

equitably distributed. Lastly, it is desirable to consider very carefully whether book interest should not be abolished.
The immediate effect of this Bill will be greatly to add to the danger of inflation of funeral expenses. I have spoken on this matter several times, and I do not wish to repeat myself in a way that might be wearisome to the House. On the Second Reading of the National Insurance Bill, however, the Prime Minister was good enough, in reply to my observations upon this subject, to say:
I noted his condemnation"—
my condemnation—
of some of the abuses connected with the burial of the dead. … I would only say it is our purpose to see that this money is not squandered and wasted in that manner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1946: Vol. 418, c. 1897–8.]
The Minister of National Insurance, on the Third Reading of the Bill, after I had raised the subject again, said:
… the matter is engaging the attention of the President of the Board of Trade. … The Central Price Regulation Committee have given consideration to this, and have presented reports to the President. They are, I understand, being asked to reconsider it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1946: Vol. 423. c. 1461.]
Well, a good many months have elapsed since then, and we have heard nothing more about that matter. I believe that this Bill will make that a still more pressing and urgent need, and I hope the Government will again give attention to it. I welcome this Bill for what it does, and I believe that in the Committee stage it can be greatly improved. I hope the Government will keep an open mind on it, and will be sympathetic to Amendments if they are moved by some of us who are anxious to see incorporated in the law of industrial assurance some of the recommendations of the Cohen Committee, and to make certain that some of the abuses to which the late Sir Arnold Wilson drew attention are eliminated from the practice and ways of this country.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Daines: We have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Molson). I do not think there is much room for controversy about this Bill, but I am quite certain that when Members read his speech tomorrow, and the speech of the right hon.


and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), they will find some essential points of difference between them. The hon. Member for the High Peak referred to France, and all I wish to say on that is that the delegation which went to that country found many points of interest. France has so many attractions. Perhaps that is all I had better say on that point.
This Bill is a modest Measure, and is the inevitable consequence of the National Insurance Act. Underlying the great and mighty business of industrial assurance, with its huge accumulation of funds, is something which is peculiarly English, but which is also of great economic importance. I think it would be very interesting indeed if the Government were to set up another committee of inquiry with real powers, not only to consider the day to day operation of this business, but also the vast financial power that is wielded by this country's great industrial assurance offices. This business has been built up on the fear of a pauper's funeral. I am of the working class; I know their mind instinctively. I believe that one has to be of the working class to be able really to understand them. The fear that when the old gentleman or the old lady dies, his or her funeral will not be conducted with decorum and dignity, has been traded on by the great corporations which have come into existence to carry out industrial assurance. It is our job, as Members of Parliament—and it is the Government's job—to show the people, by means of publicity behind the National Insurance Act, that a death grant has been provided for under that Act, and that the bogy of a pauper's funeral need no longer he feared.
The Government—and I say this with a sense of personal pride—in response to an Amendment I moved on the Committee stage of the National Insurance Bill, agreed that where a person was an inmate of a public institution, and died, benefit should be paid, so that the funeral could be conducted without any taint of pauperism being attached to it. In July, the people of this country will have to meet a substantial increase in compulsory contributions, and it is, therefore, the Government's duty thoroughly to publicise their own scheme so that people will be aware of it, and can arrange their business accordingly. When talking

about this Bill it is a great temptation to say that the solution of this problem, however much we may wish to dodge it, is contained in the Report of the Beveridge Committee. I believe that, ultimately, we shall have to come to that solution.
What surprised me, listening to the speeches made so far, is that no hon. Member has said that the root cause of the over-selling that occurs in insurance is the method of payment. Anyone who understands the business knows that there is over-selling. It is humbug to deny it. Take the average insurance agent. I do not deny that he is an honest and respectable citizen. He can insure, for example, a life at 60 or 70. Suppose he insures a life at 70 for 1s. a week—and premiums of this sort are quite common—immediately he does that, and receives the first is he earns for himself a procuration fee of 12 to 18 times that amount. The very system of payment is part of the extra pressure put upon him to obtain business. I can imagine one of the advocates of the large offices in this country pointing to the fact that the Prudential have reduced the amount that is paid out in procuration fees. They changed the system, and there were two consequences. One was that their expense ratio fell, and when that happened other offices, which maintained a higher procuration fee, with inferior tables and benefits, actually had a substantially higher increase, in proportion to their debit, than did the Prudential. That shows, quite clearly, that the pressure of the system itself is bound to be the most serious factor in this question of overselling.
Clause 2 is the most important Clause in the Bill. Despite previous attempts by Parliament it legalises, for the first time, what has been an extremely doubtful legal position. From that standpoint it must be welcomed, but I suggest to the Government that the figure of £15 is somewhat too tight, and that there is a case for reconsideration on Committee, particularly in regard to the older lives which will not come under insurance when the Clause begins to operate 12 months from next July. On the appointed day, men over 65, and woman over 60, will be outside the death grant, and for men between 55 and 65, and women between 50 and 60, only the reduced benefit of £10 will be payable. I suggest that on this aspect of the benefit some easement


should be given. I am not concerned about the loss of brother and sister insurance. The actual figure is between 4 and 2½ per cent. according to the different types of office. There is not much to object to in the disappearance of that form of insurance, for only in exceptional cases has it ever fulfilled any real purpose.
When we come to the question of assignment, I get rather worried. I think that where a policy holder, through unemployment, for example, wishes to give up a policy, there should be no legal objection to the policy being assigned to the brother or sister, provided that the total amount held by them is not exceeded. There is a Clause in the Bill relating to alienation. I would ask the Attorney-General to give some definition of that when he replies. The Bill specifically prevents brothers and sisters from assigning their policies either to themselves or to other people, but there is nothing in the Bill—and I cannot find anything in previous Insurance Acts—which would debar a person taking on an "own life" policy and then assigning it. This is dealt with very exhaustively by the Cohen Committee. I think that the risk of illegal policies is considerably higher under that head. I should like the Attorney-General to clarify the position, as emphasis is laid on alienation in the Bill, as to what happens to a policy in the event of the policy owner's death. Does it go into the deceased's estate or does it revert to the insurance company?
May I say a word or two from the agent's standpoint? I have dealt with the aspect of the business so far as pressure for increase is concerned. I exempt the Co-operative Insurance Society, the Prudential, the Pearl and some of the other companies from what I am about to say. I may rather shock some hon. Members who have interested themselves in this question when I say, quite bluntly, that many of the large collecting societies in this country, apart from the policies, have no real record of what is actually happening so far as their industrial life business is concerned. It is perfectly true that there is a collecting book. The collecting book is transferred to a fresh collecting book at six monthly periods. I can well imagine when the transfer has taken place some 10 or 12 times that, other than the premium which is checked from book to book, there

is no real record. The amount of error after that number of unchecked transfers is bound to be very high.
In many of these large collecting societies, districts overlap—it is quite possible in a street of 100 houses in London to have agents working for the same insurance office coming from 10 different district offices. It is equally common to find two or three agents representing the same office collecting in the same house. Where we get the efficient office in terms of records there is a valuable safeguard for the agent. He submits his proposal and it is checked with the record, and if it is over the legally prescribed amount, the proposal is rejected. If the House will recall what I said on pressure the other way, one can see that every check that is installed, arising from efficient records, is extremely valuable so far as the agent is concerned. I do not think that legislation alone will make this business really efficient. I believe that the Industrial Insurance Commissioner has to he given far greater powers than he has now to effect reforms that are really necessary. When we come to the question of penalties, the agent who commits an offence has to face the same penalty as his office, that is, a fine on the first offence up to £50. Taking into consideration the difficulties under which agents are working, I submit that the penalty is far too heavy.
I now come to the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for West Derby and also that of the hon. Member for The High Peak. I am quite certain that this Clause will mean, unless something else is put behind it, that a vast number of illegal policies are certain to continue. The hon. and learned Member for West Derby made the only proposal which I think would really safeguard the agents as well as the other persons concerned. That is that we have to try to devise some form of death certificate that will effect the same purpose as in the case of children under 10. As a practical insurance man of over 20 years' experience—I have not been one since I came to this House—I am certain that there is no other way in which it can be made effective.
When the agent knows and the policy holder knows that only on a specific form of death certificate will benefit be paid, we shall have the only safeguard that can be really effective. I can imagine the Attorney-General saying "That is all very


well; you tell me how to do it." Frankly I cannot. During the week-end, I thought round this problem time and again to see what effective practical method could be adopted, when there are a number of insurances in a family, of employing the death certificate check. I do not say that this problem is insoluble, but I confess that I am quite beaten by it.
The provisions of Clause 7 are largely those contained in the Cohen Committee's Report, where a specific recommendation was made that there should be a separate premium book for each policy. The Beveridge Committee showed that the number of policies in 1939 was 103 million; that is, for every member of the population there are 2.25 industrial policies. As an aside, I might add there is no use anyone trying to say after that, that the business is not oversold. If a deduction is made for the number of families who have no industrial assurance and we allow for the fantastic increase in this business during the last two years, we can assess that the number of policies to each house will be around about a dozen. One can well imagine a poor insurance agent having to sign twelve books on every doorstep. That is quite absurd and impracticable. I know the reply from the Government Front Bench will be that the Government will not employ this regulation until paper is freer. Nevertheless, it is absurd from the standpoint of the agent and of the policy holder. I suggest that we confine ourselves to one book for the weekly business, one book for the monthly business and one for the policy holder. There will be full and adequate safeguards if we do that.
My final point is in regard to Clause 9 on policies. I do not see how we can frame an Amendment which will give us what we want. What we really want to see is something simple and direct. The bulk of the people of this country just do not understand what is contained in their industrial insurance policies. I will go further. I would say that the archaic wording of many of the industrial policies is deliberately maintained by some of our offices so that it cannot be understood by ordinary people. There is no earthly reason why legal safeguards for the policy holder should not be in simple, direct English and I plead with the Government to get simple language into policies by some form or another.

Mr. Mack: And into the Bill.

Mr. Daines: That, of course, is my last point. The point has already been said but I want to re-emphasise it. When I make this plea for simple insurance policy language, I am certain that the offices are going to reply, "What about your own Bill?" Here I want solemnly and sincerely to register a protest at the excessive verbiage that keeps on showing up in all our Bills. I must confess when I read over the Acts of 1923 and 1929 with their simple, clear English, and then I came to the present Bill, it was almost like a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme as compared with a speech from someone I cannot mention. In re-emphasising this plea for clear, simple English in Bills, I want to say it is time all hon. Members of this House irrespective of party said to the responsible officers of the Government, "There is no reason at all why we should have to read and re-read Clause after Clause of a Bill in order to get a simple explanation out of it." I want to make my protest against the excessive verbiage we have in this Bill and to plead again for a simple direct language. I support the Bill.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Speakers who have preceded me have covered a very wide field, and I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. However, it has struck me as I listened to this Debate that there is widespread concern in this House about the position of industrial assurance and it is quite right that we should spend some time on it. It is noteworthy that there have been successive inquiries since 1889 into the operation of industrial assurance and it is rather striking that when figures of industrial assurance were given here today they were those in the Beveridge Report on Social Insurance, because no later official figures are available.
It is worth while looking again for a moment at the figures which show the extent of the industrial assurance business that is being carried on in this country. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury said that in 1939 there were 103 million policies in force—that represents 2½ policies, on the average, for each man, woman and child in Britain; that 65,000


persons were employed as full-time collectors; that premiums amount to £74 million a year—I do not think that figure was quoted—and the actual expenses of the industrial assurance companies are another £24 million a year.
There seemed to be two points at the back of the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe): first, possible charges against industrial assurance undertakings on the grounds of the high cost ratio; and, secondly, the high number of lapsed policies. It has been said that the proportion of policies that have lapsed has fallen substantially in the last few years, particularly since 1941. It is a very interesting fact that from 1864—the earliest date for which I have seen any figures—right up to 1929 and 1939, the proportion of policies that have lapsed did not decrease at all. The proportion of policies which have lapsed fell, however, during the war years. I do not think there has been any official figures quoted since 1941, and the figures which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted were the figures for 1945, also a war year.
It has to be remembered that a large number of people who effected industrial insurance before the war were serving in the Forces during the war and the Government undertook to be responsible for all insurance liabilities of persons in the Forces Therefore, I suggest that because of that the figures for the years 1941 to 1945 are not an indication of an improvement in the matter of lapsed policies. The figures in 1939 were formidable indeed. In each of the three years before the war, about 10 million policies were issued by industrial assurance companies, and in each year six and three-quarter million policies lapsed because the people who had taken out the policies for some reason or another could not keep up the payments on the premiums.
It does show that there was a feverish rush for new business and an excessive pushing of policies on to people who could not afford to take them out, especially among the poorer classes of the community. As the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) pointed out, it is the poorer section of the community which is subject to that kind of pressure primarily because of the fear of not being able to afford a decent funeral. They are

afraid of a pauper's funeral and the primary purpose of industrial assurance is to provide funeral benefit. The power to insure for funeral expenses is to be swept away by Clause 1 of the Bill.
In his Report, Sir William Beveridge made, with great emphasis, a suggestion for dealing with the problem of industrial assurance, namely, in the words of that report, that
it should be converted from being a private seller's business to being a monopoly consumer service.
I do not think that any further committee of inquiry is necessary. This business cannot be controlled by the kind of supervising power which the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) suggested. The words used in the report are convincing. I will quote the words used in Appendix D of the Beveridge Report:
The proposal that life assurance among persons of limited means should be a public service rather than a competitive, private business, is based on the special character of industrial assurance, as a business in which competition leads to over-selling, and as a business in which the seller's interest represents a special danger to the community. Life assurance is not like other commodities, because those who insure make their choice once and for all when they take out a policy.
The Attorney-General will, I hope, give an assurance that, in addition to earning a bow from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), the Government have not closed their minds to the possibility of setting up an Industrial Assurance Board to deal with industrial assurance as suggested in the Beveridge Report.

5.53 p.m.

Mrs. Braddock: I support this very moderate Bill because it makes improvements in the position, but I had hoped that when a Pill of this kind was presented, it would contain many more safeguards for the ordinary working class person in relation to payments for industrial assurance.
I have had a long experience of this matter. I have spent weeks, one after the other, tramping from the bottom of fivestorey tenements up to the top, collecting insurance premiums, when my husband was unable, through illness, to do so. I have been staggered many times at the efforts that have been made by the poorest sections of the people of this country to continue to pay amounts weekly for insur-


ance. When they could not pay, there was no return for the weekly amounts they had already paid, and the business lapsed, after non-payment for six or eight weeks. The family would then commence to worry about what might happen if one of them should die while out of benefit. Then would come a recommencement of the payment of weekly premiums, at a lower rate of death benefit. I know for a fact that that process has gone on in families where the premium could be paid for about f o months while the man was working in temporary employment, or in some better work. After the business had lapsed, with no compulsion upon the company to return the premiums that had been paid, there has been re-insurance in he same company within a year. This process has gone on year after year.
I have wondered why, when premiums have not been paid for about 12 months because the family had got into difficulties, there was not some power to insist upon the return of some of the contributions that had been made. There is no alteration in that respect in the Bill. I intervened when the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was speaking, to say that people do not lapse on their policies now so often as they used to do, because their weekly financial position is very much better than it has been for the past 25 years. The only reason they allow their policies to lapse is financial inability to continue to make the contribution.
There is a terrific struggle in the insurance world at the moment, an almost fanatical struggle, to secure industrial insurance business. Agents are being pressed by their companies, and business is being put on at a rate which has never been equalled before. The Attorney-General ought to give us some indication of what is likely to happen, after the appointed day under the National Insurance Scheme, to the new premiums now being collected. Industrial workers will have to pay 4s. 11d. weekly to the State after the appointed day, and probably they will find that their payments for industrial assurance, amounting to 3s. or 4s. per week for a family of a man, wife and six or seven children, are impossible, on top of the National Insurance contribution. Is there any possibility of introducing into the Bill in Committee a provision to secure a return of premiums which people are now commencing to pay,

if they subsequently find they are incapable of paying them, in addition to the new insurance payments?
All insurance companies pay death benefits out of their current yearly receipts of contributions. I know that to be a fact. Never at any time, for a number of years, have they had to draw upon their reserves. The profit that is being made at the expense of weekly collections of industrial assurance contributions is perhaps the highest that we can possibly imagine in any form of business. Short of nationalising this section of industry, the Government ought to look at the matter very carefully to see whether it is possible to regulate the amounts that people pay.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: Why not nationalise it?

Mrs. Braddock: I am in favour of nationalising it. I thought hon. Members opposite were not in favour of it. Clause 7 contains the suggestion that there should be a separate collecting book for each member of the family. Having had some experience, I can say that that would be a terrific waste of energy, paper and books. A workingclass woman is not always able to put her hand on all the books she requires at a given time. If this comes into operation, I can visualise the number of times an agent will have to supply a new book for a member of a family because the old book has been lost. It is bad enough at the moment. At the moment, often a woman cannot find the book containing the names of all the insured people in the family. It the agent has to provide a new book every time the person paying the insurance cannot produce the books for each individual in the family, I can imagine the muddle the agent will be in and the penalties there will be when people have not got individual books. That point ought to be looked into during the Committee stage. It should be sufficient to have in one book the names of all the members of the family who are insured.
I hope the Attorney-General and the Government will see whether it is possible to compel insurance companies to return at any rate part of the premiums if a policy lapses through a person's financial inability to carry on the insurance for the 12 months which are at present


allowed by the insurance companies for a free paid-up policy. The points I have made are important and I hope some consideration will be given to them.

6.3 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I ought to disclose to the House the fact that I am associated with a friendly society, whose functions are widespread in the Midlands and which carries on its business with, I hope, a full sense of its responsibility for careful administration. I will not follow the hon. Lady the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who made an interesting speech, but will submit to the Attorney-General that some of the things she said are, from the point of view of efficiently treating the collection of insurance in the interests of the country, very well worthy of his careful attention. I need hardly say that I do not agree with the suggestion that came from the Liberal benches that we should nationalise industrial assurance. With that part of the hon. Lady's speech and the wisdom we got from the Liberal Benches, I do not identify myself.
I was struck by the clear and concise speech made by the Financial Secretary. I wish he could convey to those responsible for the drafting of Bills in this House some of that facility of expression with which he places before the House from time to time explanations of the matters with which he is called upon to deal. I look again and again at Clause 8. I put it to the Attorney-General whether in common sense and in practice any ordinary person could make head or tail of it without giving it most careful study. The Attorney-General will find a series of Subsections in Clause 11 couched in language of which the ordinary man in the street and, above all, the agent of an industrial assurance society and the people to whom such assurance applies, will have difficulty in getting the real sense and meaning.
I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in the tribute he paid to the work of the industrial assurance in this country. Since the days of Robert Owen to the days in which we live, industrial assurance and the work of the friendly societies have benefited the lives of the poorest people of the land and have

had an important place in our social structure. We can never be too grateful to Lord Beveridge for the Report he prepared and to the Minister of National Insurance for the way in which he has conducted one of the greatest Measures of social reform that has been put before this House since I came here 28 years ago. Leaving apart the substance of the Measure itself, we appreciate the manner in which the Minister has conducted the Measure through the House—he has been conciliatory and has received deputations who have made suggestions—except in one respect, that is that my poor approved societies have been wiped off. I hope the day will not come when the Minister of National Insurance will regret the action he has taken in that respect.
We ought to be grateful for the introduction of this Bill. Small Bills dealing with subjects affecting the very poorest in the land come into this House from time to time. This Bill, which safeguards the rights and privileges of people assured under industrial assurance, is one of those Measures which are not much talked about outside and do not get headlines in the newspapers; nevertheless, it will have a widespread beneficent effect on large masses of the people of the country, and I congratulate the Government on the introduction of the Bill.
I should not like to press the point of the separate premiums receipt book. That seems to be introducing into this Bill a new burden upon the agents of industrial assurance societies. As the hon. Lady pointed out, the work that falls on industrial assurance agents in these days is extremely heavy. I can imagine an agent coming to the door of a house in one of the back streets of Birmingham and a poor woman having to sign 12 books. That is a burden which ought not to be imposed on people already burdened with housework and the responsibilities of a family. I am sure that during the Committee stage improvements will be introduced by hon. Members who have had practical experience of industrial assurance over many years.
The Government are to be commended upon the attitude they have adopted in safeguarding the interests of a very large section of the population who come within the scope of industrial assurance. As a final word for the consideration of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme


(Mr. Mack), may I say I believe the agents are a very fine body of men. On the whole, they have done their job uncommonly well, for they have had a difficult pant to play in the maintenance of the great social system of industrial assurance. I should be glad if the Attorney-General would tell me that something will be done to simplify the drafting of Bills.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Goodrich: I wish to join with those who have given a hearty welcome to this Bill, and I appreciate very much what was said by the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) about the friendly society movement. This movement welcomes the raising of the £300 limit to £500 although, naturally, a higher figure would have been more welcome. We all know why the £300 limit was imposed in 1896, but there is a great difference between those days and the present, and £500 today is nothing like what £300 was then. With the passage of time, a great alteration has taken place.
As I say, the friendly society movement would have welcomed a higher figure if only for one reason. Friendly society members are the thrifty section of the population. It is their desire in many cases to purchase their own house, and they seek the aid of the friendly societies first for their own benefit and secondly, for good security for their money. However, in these days, when the price of houses is extraordinarily high, they take out a policy to cover the mortgage on their property and to cover the contingency of dying before the mortgage is redeemed. In order to get full cover, the friendly societies must of necessity under the present Act, farm out that insurance policy to an industrial company as they will do under the Bill.
There was a great fear that the Treasury might make some alteration to the Finance Act, 1918, by stopping the Income Tax benefit enjoyed by the friendly society movement. I am pleased to know that my right hon. Friend is prepared to submit an Amendment to ensure that there is no alteration in respect of the payment of Income Tax by friendly societies, but I would like an assurance that this will be operated as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill.
For some unknown reason, my right hon. Friend has made no alteration in the

ceiling of annuities above £52. I wish to make a point on behalf of those people who are employed where superannuation schemes cannot be adopted. In order to get the benefit which those employed by big corporations, civil servants, and so on, are able to get on retirement at 60 or 65, it is necessary for that section of the population to provide it for themselves. The be means of doing so is to take out a policy for an annuity, a very wise proposition. However they can only receive £1 a week. While appreciating that the Minister's scheme provides 26s. or perhaps 42s. a week by way of old age pension, that sum is absolutely inadequate, and a large section of the population would seek to augment their old age pensions if they could have £2, for they would then have not much below the wages that most of them were earning at the time of their retirement. So I regret that the Minister has been unable to raise the ceiling of the annuities.
It would appear to prominent members of the friendly societies that Clause 16 must be tightened in the interests of the societies and of the Government. I may find it necessary later to put down Amendments to meet the case which it will not: be too difficult for the Government to concede. I thank the Minister for his concession, but I would ask him to look into the matter of the annuities again to see if something cannot be done. I am not asking him to raise the ceiling above £500, and I will refer again to Clause it in due course. I have great pleasure in supporting the welcome accorded to this Bill.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: Like my old friend the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), I ought to avow an interest, though it is only that of a humble vice-president of the friendly society of which he is so distinguished a president. I wish also to join in the congratulations to the Financial Secretary on the clarity and brevity of his exposition. The Debate has been an interesting one, but I confess that the speech I personally most enjoyed was that delivered by, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack). It is an exhilarating thing for a member of the lower branch of the legal profession to listen to the present and the late heads of the English Bar being publicly ad-


monished; and in particular the present head being exhorted to clarify that involved draftsmanship which the laity always seem to think is necessarily the work of lawyers. I would not try to controvert that allegation in toto, but I submit that it is not the work of solicitors. It is the work of Parliamentary draftsmen who are members of the Bar and who are, I am very much afraid, aided and abetted by Law Officers. I do not know the remedy but I speak as a member of a suffering branch which has to advise on the explanation of Statutes, and I wish to make it plain that it is not our fault.
Speeches have related to industrial insurance, to possible further amendments, and even to nationalisation, but one only, I believe, has referred particularly to the question of friendly societies. All hon Members have had a memorandum on the subject, and that was alluded to by the Financial Secretary in his opening speech. In some of its sentiments it may have been perhaps a little extreme, but I do not think it can be disposed of so lightly as the Financial Secretary saying that there appears to be some misunderstanding. The 1918 Act gives exemption from taxation to societies transacting business up to a £300 limit. This Bill raises the limit to £500 and I think without doubt sweeps the exemption away. I shall not be impressed by any argument that those who wished to do it could do so on the £300 limit and maintain their exemption, because it is common ground that they could not do so, and the value of £300 in 1896 would be as great as Loci now. A Clause could have been inserted in the Bill, as was pointed out by the memorialists, deferring the operation until the passage of a new Finance Act. That was not done possibly because the Bill was not prepared under the supervision of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is quite idle to say that there was a misunderstanding and misapprehension and then put in the Clause, which plainly shows there was no misapprehension but that the matter was, let us say, politely overlooked. It is better late than never.
As to the position in regard to investment by friendly societies, it appears to me that from 1896 onwards they have had an unlimited power of investment with the National Debt Commissioners

and, until a certain Statutory Rule and Order, to invest in the Post Office Savings Bank. Those powers are now sought to be cut down, and the slight explanation given by the Financial Secretary that they are not in line with the cheap money policy of the Government appears to me to be totally unsatisfactory. They were conferred in the year 1896 when 2¾ per cent. Consols, which were already known to be due for reduction to 2½ per cent., stood round about 114, and there was a serious question whether the Post Office Savings Bank could permanently continue to pay 2½ per cent. interest. Newspapers were expressing the hope that they would do so, even at a loss, and that has continued since. Can it now be said that money is cheaper than at that time? I should imagine that all long-dated Government securities could be bought now on a 2¾ per cent, basis.
I quite understand that this particular money might be called short money, readily realised money. But what of it? I cannot be expected to know what was the rate of short money 50 years ago, but it was certainly very much less than the figure at which long-dated debt stood. Short-dated money has always been very much cheaper, and it is straining one's credulity to ask one to believe that a Measure which was introduced in a time when money was as cheap as now and which has worked well over 50 years, must now be done away with because it does not suit the cheap money policy of the Government. If the cheap money policy of the Government has to be bolstered up by the withdrawal of this small privilege, it is in a very bad way. Today is not the time to stifle or thwart these attempts at mutual thrift, or to do anything to damp down or discourage the friendly society movement. I sincerely hope that the unwise counsels which are shown in this part of the Bill may be moderated, or totally removed, in Committee.

6.27 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shaweross): We have had an interesting Debate on this matter which, inevitably, I think, has ranged over a wide field and has dealt largely with matters of detail rather than of principle. With some of those matters I will attempt to deal. Some of them, of course, will require careful consideration in Committee.
From the hon. Member for the High Peak (Mr. Molson), who was followed in this respect by the hon. Member for East Ham North (Mr. Daines) and the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock), we had a thoughtful and informed speech upon the subject of industrial insurance, which raises certain general questions of principle as to the utility of the existing system. I cannot attempt to follow him, nor perhaps would this be the appropriate moment, in a discussion of those general principles, except perhaps to say that one can well understand the anxiety which some hon. Members have expressed that this form of insurance, still increasing beyond the figures given in the Beveridge Report, still the subject of an astonishing number of lapsed policies—I think the proportion of lapses in the case of new policies is something of the order of 60 per cent.—and still the subject of what is undoubtedly a very high cost ratio, should be made the subject of some form of public administration and control.
That indeed was the recommendation of Sir William Beveridge, but hon. Members will recall that his recommendation in regard to this matter was a bracketed one, which he did not consider essential to the operation of the general National Health Insurance Scheme. That is the view which the present advisers of the Government have taken. We have by no means shut our eyes to the possibility of making industrial insurance a national service. We have by no means closed our minds to it. We were forced to introduce this admittedly somewhat stop-gap measure because of the introduction of the death grant under the National Health Insurance Scheme and the repercussions it will have both in regard to legality of existing insurance and of payments in respect of the death of children under 10. In introducing this Bill as a stop-gap Measure we have not for a moment forgotten the possibility of a wider measure dealing with the whole subject. This is perhaps a step.
At the moment the Department concerned with National Insurance has a heavy administrative task in bringing the national scheme into being. It was thought that it would not be wise to overload the machine by adding to that task at this stage the further heavy and compli-

cated task of dealing with the question of industrial insurance. I am able to assure the House that this Measure is introduced entirely without prejudice to the possibility that later we might have some further and wider measure, dealing in a more comprehensive scheme with the whole of this interesting and complicated social problem.
Having said that about the matter of general principle, I come to more detailed points. The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir E. Maxwell Fyfe) raised first a point in regard to the exclusion of policies on the lives of brothers and sisters. As a rule brothers and sisters are not under any legal liability to incur funeral expenses in respect of each other's death. Indeed, of the total premium income of those who undertake the business of industrial insurance the proportion which is attributable to this particular form of insurance between brothers and sisters is given in the Beveridge Report as something under 5 per cent., a figure which seems to show that there is no wide demand for this particular kind of cover. That figure was ascertained when the liability might be for the whole funeral expenses, as opposed to the indirect expenses consequent upon the death. That is not so now, because under the national scheme there will be a death grant of £20.
It may be that in exceptional cases a brother or sister may wish to insure against the risk of incurring expenses—travelling expenses, possibly, though less probably now, mourning, the loss of a day's pay, the cost of a wreath and matters of that kind, in the event of the brother or sister dying. The risk of their having to incur that kind of expense is small, however, and experience has shown that very few want to insure against it. There may be exceptional cases, but just in the same way there may be exceptional cases, say, in respect of a nephew or niece who wishes to insure against expenses of this kind in respect of an uncle or aunt. We have had to draw the line somewhere, and as the hon. Member for the High Peak said, we have had to do it in a rough and ready way. This seemed the appropriate line at which to draw it, and to provide that these insurances should in future only be taken out in respect of people for whom there was likely to be a


legal liability—the parents and grandparents.
Then the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for The High Peak and one or two other Members raised the troublesome problem of proof of death so as to ensure that not more than £15 was paid to any one person and, one might add, to ensure also that not more than £15 was insured to any one person. This is a matter which presents considerable administrative difficulty, and we want to find some solution of it, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested, which would not cause inconvenience at a time of distress to the people who have taken out policies of this kind. We have been thinking rather on the lines suggested by the right hon. and learned Member about the possibility of a special form of death certificate upon which the payment made would have to be endorsed. That is a matter which we shall have to explore further in Committee. We shall welcome any suggestion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman or any other hon. Member may be able to make to assist us in finding some proper solution for a problem which everyone regards as troublesome.
I turn to the point raised by a number of hon. Members about the provisions of Clause 16, which abolish certain powers which are at present enjoyed to invest funds with the National Debt Commissioners. The suggestion which was made by one hon. Member and repeated by another hon. Member that this new proposal is in some way damaging to the Savings Movement, or is in some way inimical to mutual thrift, is really quite misconceived. The fact that this particular form of investment is no longer to be available to the friendly societies will not result in any individual members of the societies allowing their policies to lapse or ceasing to pay the premiums as they fall due. Those payments, which are the real form of saving and thrift by the community, will still continue, and the insurance fund resulting from them will continue to be invented in one form or another. The fact that they will no longer be capable of investment in this particular fund, a fund which has never been included in the total figures of National Savings published from time to time, does not make these premiums any

the less savings or any the less a form of thrift on the part of the people who pay them.
The position with regard to investment in this fund is simply that the Government really cannot continue a policy of borrowing money at call on the terms which have hitherto obtained. It is in practice money at call, for although there is a right to refuse to allow a fresh deposit to be made once that deposit has been withdrawn, that right has been exercised only twice in the whole history of this investment, and only in the case where the whole deposit has been withdrawn. It has, in practice, been found impossible to exercise that right, when only part of the deposit is withdrawn. In fact, the fund has to be kept fluid and the money is at call.
The Government find it quite impossible to continue a policy of borrowing money a t call at a rate which may well have been economic—I have no idea whether it was or not—50 years ago, but it is certainly uneconomic at the present time, and it is quite inconsistent with the Government's cheap money policy. I do not want to get involved in any discussion about the Government's cheap money policy, about which I could hardly know less than I do, but my advice is that the Government can borrow money for considerably less, and that this money in the hands of the Government does not, therefore, earn the rate of interest which the Government are compelled to pay upon it. In these circumstances we cannot feel that it is right to continue what is in fact a scarcely veiled form of hidden subsidy to the societies. I would only add this in regard to it, that it is impossible to feel that the abolition of this form of investment will greatly inconvenience those who conduct the business of industrial assurance. The total industrial assurance fund stands somewhere in the neighbourhood of £700 million. About one hundredth of that amount happens to be invested with the National Debt Commissioners. We propose to make repayment in an orderly and convenient way over the next three and a half years.
The other part of Clause 15 contains a provision in regard to deposits with the Post Office Savings Bank. It is intended merely to clarify the existing law. In our view the existing law is not that there is any right of unlimited deposit with


the Post Office Savings Bank. The provision of the statute which enables trustees to invest any amount in the Post Office Savings Bank does not impose any obligation on the Postmaster-General to accept large deposits. The matter is now one which we wish to make abundantly clear, and beyond the possibility of legal doubt, by having included in this Bill an express provision in regard to it.
The point was raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Mack), who was followed in this matter by one of the hon. Members who spoke after him. He attacked on two grounds the £15 limit, which will, in future, be placed upon this form of insurance. The first was perhaps hardly a ground which could assist the House in deciding whether the amount is sufficient in itself to cover the expenses for which it is to be provided. The hon. Member suggested a larger sum would to some extent compensate for the loss—whatever it may be—that societies, companies and agents will suffer from the restriction of the Clause in respect of whom these policies may be issued.
Although the exact figures are not available to date, it seems quite clear that the inclusion of the insurance of brothers and sisters—as mentioned in dealing with the points raised by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby—will effect only a very small reduction in the premium income. Quite clearly, we could not raise the limit of the amount payable on death simply to bring about the result that insurance companies and friendly societies and agents should not lose quite as much as they might otherwise do from the provisions in this Bill.
The main consideration is whether £15 is enough. Is that a reasonable provision for the loss insured against? When it is appreciated that the object of these policies is simply to indemnify those classes of relatives who are covered by the Bill against reasonable expenses in connection with the death of their relative, there can, in my submission to the House, be little doubt that the sum of £15 is sufficient. Take first the person who has to bear the funeral expenses. He will get £20 national death grant, plus £15. That is the amount recommended by Sir William Beveridge. We understand—and I think we have been told so in this Debate—that the average amount paid under policies, is somewhere between £20

and £30. That person is, therefore, at least as well off as he was before. Probably he is better off. Certainly he is £15 better off than the Cohen Committee thought proper. That Committee, as hon. Members will recall, recommended the figure of £20 without any national death grant. So the person on whom the actual cost of the funeral falls, is in our view, amply provided for. The rest of the relatives may be put to expenses of travelling, mourning, flowers, the loss of pay and so on.
We have formed the view that, in allowing £15, we have allowed a sum reasonable in all the circumstances. Although it is very natural that people should wish to incur expenditure on these unhappy occasions it is better, perhaps from a social viewpoint, not to encourage anything more than is vitally necessary. There is not much doubt that the more that is made available by the way of grant or insurance, the greater is the risk that the cost of funerals and all the attendant matters—already greatly inflated as many people think—will become even higher than at present. On the whole, we think, with Sir William Beveridge, that £15 is a reasonable amount for which to provide.
I come now to the rather difficult question of the premium receipt book. I do not think that any hon. Member will doubt that the present position is neither satisfactory nor convenient. There may be many members in a family each having a number of policies all of which are mixed up, higgledy-piggledy, in a single premium book. What is provided for by Clause 7 of the Bill, as at present drafted, is first, that a premium receipt book shall be provided. That is doing no more than giving legal effect to what, I understand, is normally the usual practice nowadays. The second thing, and it is about this object that complaints are map, is that we take power to provide by regulations for the form which these receipt books should take.
It does not follow that those regulations would prescribe a separate book in respect of each separate policy, although I believe that was in the recommendations which the Cohen Committee made in this matter. It may be that we should take the view that there ought to be one book for each policy holder, so that when he left a particular house and went to live


elsewhere, and became separated from his family, he could take his premium receipt book with him. I can assure hon. Members who have raised this matter that we appreciate the difficulties, and will give them most careful consideration. When this Bill has been passed into law we shall not draft the final regulations without taking into account all that has been said, and any other representations which may be made.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked what was the main point of the provision that there should be a conspicuous statement as to the proposer of the policy, and that it should form part of the policy itself. As hon. Members will be aware, great difficulties have arisen as to the ownership of particular policies in the administration of this form of insurance. There is really no particular difficulty in asking that the name of the proposer—and the name of the proposer may be the key to the actual ownership at any given time—should be inserted in the policy. Not in the microscopic print one is usually accustomed to find in insurance policies—microscopic perhaps because it is hoped that nobody will take the trouble to read it—but in a clear manner, which anyone can see. That is the purpose of this particular provision, which I hope will not impose undue burdens on the companies, societies or agents.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North, asked me about the position in regard to assignability. The possibility of assigning this form of policy obviously could raise not only considerable administrative difficulty, but serious dangers of a social kind. If unrestricted assignment is permitted the effect of the restrictions on whom policies of this kind can be taken out is destroyed. Indeed, as the hon. Member himself pointed out, it is a way of effecting policies by persons who have no insurable interest, statutory or otherwise, but who are able to take over by assignment a policy taken out in the name of one who initially had such an interest. Therefore we do not want to do anything to permit general assignment. If someone, in fact, pays the premiums of a policy,

we have provided that the amount that he has paid—and no more—may form a charge on the sum which eventually becomes payable under the policy itself.
I come finally to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Ham, North, and the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). I confess that it is a matter with which I personally have the very greatest sympathy. I refer to the point that the language of Statutes ought to be more simple. I am bound to say that I am very much in favour of simplicity in the drafting of Bills. It is very much easier in my experience to say that a Bill ought to be simple than to draft the simple Bill. I read the proviso to Clause 8 eight times before I really understood what it did. I cannot assure the House with any confidence that I understand now; but when I tried to draft the same purpose in different wording I found that it was not so easy as I thought it must be at first sight.
Parliamentary draftsmen, who are responsible for drafting these Measures, have a very heavy task in framing the Bills which come before the House. Very frequently their hands are fettered by the language of previous enactments which they are modifying, adding to, or amending, and sometimes also by the language of judicial decisions. It certainly is not an easy matter, as many people think it is, to draft Parliamentary Measures. However, we will gladly consider in Committee any proposed redraft of the proviso to Clause 8 which the hon. Member for Moseley or anyone else may be able to submit.
I cannot attempt now to deal with the other detailed points which have been raised We will go through the OFFICIAL REPORT carefully and give consideration to each point in order that they may be dealt with when we reach them during the Committee stage. I hope that the House will now feel prepared to give a unanimous Second Reading to this Bill.
Question put, and agreed to
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — SUTTON'S HOSPITAL IN CHARTERHOUSE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price (Charity Commissioner): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
As a rule, it is not necessary for the Charity Commissioners to trouble this House with a matter concerning the variation of a trust. However, in this case it is thought to be necessary because Sutton's Hospital in Charterhouse is a rather exceptional case. The view is taken that this trust cannot be altered without the consent of Parliament, because it was set up under Statute. In 1611 a Royal Charter provided funds for an almshouse and a free school for poor persons. I should like to make it clear that the well known school at Charterhouse is not directly affected by this alteration in the trust, though, of course, originally it comes from the same foundation.
The Charter of 1611 was confirmed by Act of Parliament in the reign of Charles I, in 1627. That is the reason it is felt that any alteration of the trust must have the consent of Parliament. Under the original Charter, a preacher was provided to preach and teach the word of God to the inmates. This provision was confirmed by the Act of 1627. A house was provided, and a sum of £350 a year. In addition, there was appointed a master for general administrative purposes. Under the terms of the trust the master must he a clergyman of the Church of England able to assist the preacher in divine service.
In 1941 the buildings of Charterhouse in London suffered serious war damage. Some very fine old buildings were destroyed. The governors consider it desirable to set by funds for the purpose of assisting in the restoration of these buildings. In addition, it is expected that insurance money will be available. The Charity Commissioners gave permission in 1929 for the trust to dispense with a preacher when it was found that economies were necessary. That decision was later confirmed. In 1941, after the bomb damage, the Charity Commissioners gave permission for the sum of money set by for the preacher to be set by in future for restoration work.
It is generally felt, and the governors agree, that it is unnecessary to nave both a master and a preacher, because both are members of the Church of England and both are able to conduct divine service. What the governors want is that the office of preacher shall be dispensed with and that of master retained. The Charity Commissioners agree with this suggestion, which will save a sum of money. Among the governors is the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Bill consists of two Clauses, the first of which confirms the scheme approved by the Commission in 1929, and again in 1940, to dispense with a preacher. Clause 2 cites the short Title of the Bill. There is a somewhat lengthy Schedule which sets forth in detail the scheme of the Charity Commissioners in 1929 and the variations suggested in 1940 and 1942.

7.0 p.m.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: On behalf of hon. Members on these benches, I would like to say that we offer no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. In fact, the principle that there should be recourse to this House after the comparatively short interval of 321 years is one which commends itself to us highly. With regard to the trust and its religious aspect, the hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has shown that not only are the religious aspects to be well regarded, but that the Archbishop is a trustee and will be able to have it under his hand. For all these reasons, we are prepared to support the Bill.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: I do not desire to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, which has been so felicitously moved by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price), but I think it is an occasion when we should have a full knowledge of the circumstances, and I am impressed by the paucity of the details which have been given us by the hon. Gentleman. He gave us so little information that I should like to impart some' myself, and also, I hope, elicit a little more from him.
The hon. Gentleman began his story in 1611, but, of course, it began in 1349, the year of the Black Death, when Sir Walter Manny, who I have no doubt was


a lineal "ancestor" of the present Secretary of State for War—purchased six acres of ground at Smithfield in order to bury the victims of the plague, and it continued to be used for that purpose until 50,000 had been interred there. After that, he took the slightly insanitary step of building a monastery on top of them. That monastery, in spite of its inauspicious start, existed and prospered for many years until King Henry VIII came to the Throne. It was then dissolved, and its prior was beheaded in accordance with the practice then prevalent, to which I take no exception at all.
To take the position of Mr. Thomas Sutton, although he is embedded in the Schedule to this Bill my hon. Friend made no reference whatever to it. It is extremely important to know who he was, and whether his activities were such as would commend themselves to this House. I am glad to be able to assure the House that they were. Sutton made a large fortune out of coalmining, which deserving persons, unhappily, are no longer able to do; we prefer the Coal Board which loses money rather than makes it. With this money, Sutton founded this institution of Charterhouse in the year 1611, when a number of other eminent persons were engaged, for better or worse, in translating the Authorised Version of the Scriptures. He also contributed money for fighting the Spaniards in the Armada, and equipped a vessel which distinguished itself considerably in that engagement.
Let us turn for a moment to the Schedule to this Bill, to which my hon. Friend paid so little attention. I see there a most disturbing statement. In spite of the various provisions in the preceding Measure, the establishment of the hospital will henceforth cease to include a preacher. If we are to start on that road, we shall find before long that this House will cease to include a Chaplain, and from that it is only a step, if I may say so with all reverence, to ceasing to include a Speaker.
In this matter of the preacher, my hon. Friend gave us a little further information, because he said that the duties which properly attached to the chaplain are to be discharged by the Master, but I should like to ask him whether he has received any representations, from the "National Union of Chaplains" on this matter,

because it seems to me to be a piece of blackmail into which we ought to look further. We were not told what happened to Charterhouse during the Great Fire of London in 1666. Perhaps my hon. Friend did not tell us because, in fact, nothing happened to it, since it was outside the zone of that conflagration. But he might have referred to the fact that Colonel Newcome, who attained such mastery over the Latin language, made historic use of the term "Adsum" as an inmate of Charterhouse. Having made these further points clear, I am content to leave the Bill in the hands of my hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: I have heard with horror that I am a product of a plague pit. I believe I am one of the few hon. Members of this House who are old Carthusians, having been educated at Charterhouse. I do not know whether any of them will wish to address the House, but I would like to call attention to Thomas Sutton and to the Founder's Prayer which I heard for about four years nearly every day of my life at term time.

Mr. Vane: Quarter.

Mr. Fletcher: It went like this:
Thomas Sutton, our municifent benefactor, by whose great benefit we are here maintained for the promotion of piety and good literature.
I think it is only education like that"—piety and good literature"—which has produced the result that all four old boys of that school are sitting on this side of the House. The piety has been referred to as being preserved, although we are getting d of the preacher, since the master will carry on that duty. But what about good literature? I should like to be assured that the action now being taken will not diminish the opportunities for the study of good literature by those who have the advantage of being educated at this school. These old institutions are so easily swept away, and the economic reasons that are put forward sound so very forcible that, no doubt, nobody would presume to vote against them.
I feel that we want a little more reassurance from somebody, and I hope that, hi the face of this very old and splendid institution, we shall not pass this Bill very lightly. I do not know whether any other voices of old Carthusians will


be raised in support of this theory that piety and good literature should be advanced and may be just as useful in helping one in a Parliamentary career as in any other. Perhaps the tour of us shine with a peculiar light, and that is no doubt due to the fact that we were educated under that principle.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Vane: May I who received such education as I may have thanks to the generosity of Thomas Sutton, say that I do not think hon. Members need have any fear that the founders' objects of piety and good literature will be seriously damaged by the provisions of this Bill. When that particular hospital was founded, there were two institutions side by side in London, and now there are only 60 old gentlemen and the Master considers that he can cater for their needs himself without the aid of a preacher. There is, however, one question which ought to be of great interest to this House, because, after all, this is a hospital not far away from where we are now, a place of pleasant architecture designed for old gentlemen who may have fallen on not too good times. We do not know whether, before very long, we ourselves may not have need to apply to spend our remaining days in this admirable institution, where the same sort of gossip as we indulge in in the smoking room can be continued indefinitely. One other point which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman who spoke before me, was that many distinguished people had been educated there. There was even one Prime Minister who was, we were told, among the least distinguished but now I am afraid that record has been lost to Haileybury.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I gather that this refers to the hospital buildings. It has not been made quite clear whether the old gentlemen are to be Old Carthusians. If they are, it would appear to me to have been slightly improper that so many Old Carthusians should have spoken without declaring their interest. Perhaps the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean will make that clear.

Mr. Philips Price: I understand that there is no provision in the trust that they must be only Old Carthusians; it is open to all. There is an additional reason, of course, why this House should vote for this abolition, because, as the

hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) informed us, we might all find ourselves in that position some day. It may be that I, being an Old Harrovian, would not have quite the same chance as an Old Carthusian of getting in, but I know that, in fact, there is no actual privilege for any one class of the community, from whatever source they may have come. It is open to all.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second Time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.12 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
This small Bill, which has rather a comprehensive Title, sets out two things. First, it provides for an extension of the period during which payment may be made to farmers for eradicating bovine tuberculosis from their herds, and, secondly, it amends the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, in regard to the licensing of stallions. These two matters are included in one small Bill for the purpose of convenience. They are, of course, separate matters, and, in commending the Bill to the House, I propose to deal with them very briefly as separate matters.
The provision dealing with bovine tuberculosis, contained in Clause r, forms Part r of the Bill, and, if hon. Members will compare this Clause with earlier legislation on the subject, they will see that there is no new issue of policy in it at all. The purpose of Clause 1 is simply to extend the authority to make payments, which was given under earlier Acts of Parliament, and which, if not renewed, would expire on 30th September, 1948. I do not intend to take up the time of the House in going into details about previous legislation, but there are, of course, two landmarks that ought to be mentioned. Payment of a bonus on milk from attested herds was first authorised in the Milk Act of 1934, for a period of four years. However, Section 20 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, extended the period and broadened the basis of


the payments that might be made. It empowered the Minister of Agriculture—and here I quote from the Act—to:
pay to the owner of any herd of cattle in Great Britain such sums as the Minister thinks fit to expend for the purpose of securing so far as practicable that the herd will be free from tuberculosis.
This enabled the Tuberculosis (Attested Herd) Scheme of 1938, which replaced the earlier scheme, not merely to continue bonus payments of 1d. per gallon and some financial assistance towards qualifying tests, but also to provide, as an alternative to the milk bonus, payments on a "per head of cattle" basis for the benefit of owners of beef herds and other herds from which little or no milk at all was sold. Section 20 of the 1937 Act thus represented a definite change in objective, and encouragement of voluntary eradication of tuberculosis was no longer restricted to dairy herds merely to assure a pure milk supply, but was extended to all herds with the object of eliminating one of the worst forms of wastage in agriculture and increasing the productivity of cattle.
The payment in the form of the milk bonus was continued simply for its convenience. But it should be noted that the purpose of these payments was quite distinct from that of the quality milk premiums payable, originally, under the milk marketing scheme, and since continued by the Ministry of Food. The period for making payments under the 1937 Act was extended by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) (No. 2) Act, 1940, until 30th September, 1948. I should mention that the decision to extend the period was actually taken in respect of each herd before the outbreak of war in 1939. It had been hoped in 1939 that, by 1948, the attested herd scheme would be so firmly established as to be able to run on its own impetus. Unfortunately, this hope was frustrated by the war. The scheme was rapidly expanding, but it had to be closed to new entrants, except those holding licences to produce tuberculin tested milk and who wished to proceed to the attestation stage.
Therefore, practically no further progress could be, or, in fact, was made until the middle of 1944, when the restriction on entry was actually removed. However, the increase in 1943 of the quality premium for tuberculin tested

milk, from 2½d. to 4d. a gallon, acted as an indirect incentive to attestation, and there has been a continuous flow of new entrants ever since. Since the middle of 1944—approximately three and a hall years—the number of attested herds in Great Britain has increased by not less than 87 per cent.—from 16,000 to 30,000 herds—while the number of attested cattle has increased by not less than 84 per cent. That, I think, is an achievement carried out by farmers in most difficult times of which they may well feel proud.

Mr. Alpass: Would my right hon. Friend say what that 84 per cent. represents? Does it represent the total of dairy cattle in the country?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir, the increase of 84 per cent. was the increase in the number of the cattle in attested herds in the period from the middle of 1944 down to December, 1947.

Mr. Alpass: Has my right hon. Friend the figure which that percentage represents?

Mr. Williams: I think I shall be able to give my hon. Friend the figure he asks for in a moment. There are now nearly 1,200,000 attested cattle in Great Britain, or more than one-eighth of the total cattle population. I think we must give Scotland all the medals for making much more progress than was made in Wales or England, although, in three counties in Wales at all events—Pembroke, Cardiganshire and Carmarthen—they have done magnificently. England, unfortunately, lags hopelessly behind.
I said earlier that the 1937 Act represented a change of objectives. It provided means for initiating large-scale plans for the eradication of animal diseases, and, as I understood then and understand still, the intention was to concentrate, first of all, on the reduction of bovine tuberculosis. But the war intervened and we are now, in 1948, called upon to make another start. Preliminary discussions have already taken place on a long-term plan for the reduction of tuberculosis, area by area. An essential feature of any such plan must be the active encouragement of voluntary attestation to secure the maximum voluntary response in prospective eradication areas before compulsory measures are finally applied.
For this purpose it is necessary, therefore, to reintroduce the attested bonus scheme for all types of herd. Clause will continue the power to make such payments. The rate and duration of the payments—and this, of course, is important—will be determined by a scheme requiring the approval of the Treasury and which must be laid before Parliament. It is difficult to say how long it might take to clear the whole of the country of bovine tuberculosis. This will obviously be determined by a number of factors, including the extent to which we can provide ourselves with the necessary veterinary manpower and also with the supply of attested cattle for replacements in those areas. Therefore, it is generally agreed by those who have tried to examine the problem that it cannot take less than 10 or 15 years, or even more, and it would be undesirable, therefore, to place too short a time limit on the authorities to make these payments.
Accordingly, Clause 1 extends for 10 years—that is to say, until September, 1958—the limit of time for making payments, with power to extend for three successive periods of five years, after approval by the Treasury and confirmation by both Houses of Parliament. Personally I think this is a sound, solid, national investment, and any hon. Member who reads the Hopkins Report, 1944, will also agree that any Government has a moral obligation and responsibility to try to cope with animal diseases in this country.

Mr. Hurd: Could the Minister say whether under Clause r payments can be made to store rearing farms and beef farms?

Mr. Williams: The scheme as outlined in Clause r will cover all herds, whether they are pure dairy herds, beef herds or herds from which little or no milk is obtained.
Part II of the Bill has been agreed by the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself, since the Secretary of State will be responsible for administering Part II in Scotland. This Part provides for an extension of the provision of the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, following recommendations made by the Ministry's Livestock Improvement Committee which is a non-statutory advisory body including both genetical scientists and practical breeders. Under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, a

licence was required for stallions which were travelled or exhibited for service away from home, and licences are only granted for stallions which attain a certain satisfactory standard of health, prolificacy conformation and physique. The Act was designed to restrict breeding from unfit or unsuitable stallions and generally to improve the quality of British horses, and I think it will be generally agreed that it has achieved considerable success.
There is, however, a serious gap. There is no control over horses standing at home for stud purposes for service either of the owner's mares or for visiting mares, and no matter how unhealthy, unsuitable or how low the standard may be, they can still be used without a licence. The Government have decided, therefore, to accept the recommendations of the Livestock Improvement Committee and to extend the licensing system to all stallions, subject to certain exceptions which are provided for in Clause 2 (2), which brings it into line with the system already in force for bulls and boars under the provisions of the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931, and Section 6 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1944, respectively. Under Clause 2 (1) it will in future be necessary to have a licence or permit for the keeping of any stallion over the prescribed age—two years at present—even if it remains or the owner's premises. Certain exceptions are provided in Subsection (2) for stallions which have attained the prescribed age before the Bill comes into force, and for thoroughbreds and prescribed breeds of ponies.
The first exception is designed to avoid too sudden a break. It may be perhaps that we are unnecessarily generous. With regard to thoroughbreds standing at home, I think the stringent conditions governing entry into the General Stud Book are ample for this particular purpose; hence their exclusion from the Bill. It is proposed that the exempted breeds shall include hill, forest and moorland breeds of ponies which live in a semi-wild state, where breeding could not by any manner of means be controlled. In considering applications for licences we shall, of course, apply exactly the same standards that are applied to travelling stallions.
The Bill will cover, therefore, broadly all stallions over the prescribed age, with


the exceptions mentioned, including some which do not reach the required standard but which there may be a good reason for keeping entire, for some specialised breeding purpose; we may have some exotic type in a zoological garden which might properly be allowed to mate with its own kind but as to which there is no possible question of it being used for general breeding purposes. If may be that there are other stallions unsuitable for breeding but which their owners, perhaps for sentimental reasons, may wish to keep entire. Then, for instance, there is the type of horse associated with the circus. There is also the type of stallion used for funerals. I understand that this bit of pageantry on the "last trail" gives a good deal of pleasure to mourners in some parts of the country, and that is why they always prefer to have stallions for that kind of work.
To cover such cases, Clause 4 provides for permits, as distinct from licences under Clause 2. The 1918 Act was very simple and easy to administer in order to license stallions which were travelled or exhibited for service. The task of policing premises where stallions are used, however, will be much more difficult. Hence the power which we seek in Clause 6 for the castration or slaughter of those for which a licence or permit is refused. The powers here correspond closely to those already granted by Parliament in Section 6 of the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931. I should point out to those who feel that there may be hardship here that the power under Clause 6 is to order slaughter or castration, the owner being able to decide which shall happen. I think it will be generally appreciated that when a stallion on a farm is not required for breeding purposes, almost invariably it is castrated at an early age. If it is desired to postpone the castration to avoid interference with the work on any farm for a short period, this can be done by the granting of a permit under Clause 4. In any case, there is no desire to use Clause 5 or Clause 6 in a vexatious manner; but we must have the power as an ultimate sanction in what may be bad cases.
Licences granted under existing legislation are for one travelling season only—that is, each year. It does not seem to me reasonable that owners of stallions,

whether they travel or not, should have to pay for a licence each year. Therefore, the Bill provides that licences should be granted without limit of time, but subject to revocation at any time. It is intended that the annual inspection should continue, and this arrangement, coupled with the number of stallions concerned, will entail greater expenditure from public funds; but we are satisfied that the upper limit of £20,000 allowed for in the Act of 1918 will be more than sufficient to meet the purpose. As hon. Members will appreciate, the lack of control over the quality and fitness of non-travelling stallions has hindered the improvement and affected the quality of our horses. We feel that that gap ought to be bridged. At the same time, the number of stallions in use for service seems to have fallen to a record low level. I understand that at the moment there are only about 1,500 of them, and of those one fifth are in Scotland.
This seems, therefore, the right moment for this legislation, which has the support of all the National Farmers' Unions and Breed Societies in England, Scotland and Wales. Experience of the benefits of similar legislation as applied to bulls and boars should make acceptable the general principles of this Bill. I, therefore, commend it to the House. I apologise for not having gone closer into the details, but I shall be ready and willing to listen to any observations made by hon. Members in any part of the House; and if at a later stage it is found possible to improve upon our first effort I shall be very glad to respond to the right kind of overtures from hon. Members.

7.33 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman need apologise to the House for the way he has introduced this Bill. It would appear he has done what the House would require; he has given us a clear picture of what he proposes to do by his Measure, and it will be possible at a later stage to discuss any detailed points. As the Minister said, this Bill is divided into two very distinct parts which cannot in any way be connected. In my view, and the view of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House, the first part is of great importance to the future of our agriculture.
The Minister explained that the first part of the Bill seeks to amend Sections 20 and 21 of the Agriculture Act, 1937, extended by Section 4 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous War Provisions) Act, 1940. The object of those Sections in the principal Act was the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Although the Minister did not give us any indication as to the period in which he thought this particular disease could be cleaned from the country, I think we can assume that, as he has taken powers to extend the principal Act for, in all, 25 years—that is, 10 years by Statute and three further periods of five consecutive years by order—he hopes it will be possible to clear the country of bovine tuberculosis in 25 years. My hon. and right hon. Friends approve the action of the Government in introducing legislation for this purpose.
Before asking the Minister one or two questions, I must refer to the Tuberculosis (Attested Herds) Scheme of 1938, to which the Minister referred. I am the owner of a small attested herd, of dairy Shorthorns, and I think it is right that I should inform the House of the fact. That important scheme started with very successful results. On that, I think, we are all in agreement. I think we are also in agreement that there was bound to be, through the war years, a setback in the progress that was made between 1938 and 1939. I cannot, however, agree with the Minister that we should be satisfied with the present position. I agree that since the T.T. premium subsidy was increased in 1943, the numbers in the attested herds have risen from 16,000 to 30,000, which represents, in a cattle population of 1,200,000 approximately one eighth of the cattle population. So far so good. But it is difficult, going round the countryside today, to perceive any sense of urgency as to the importance of making more rapid progress in the matter. After making every allowance for the inevitable setbacks due to the war, to have one-eighth of the cattle population cleaned in 10 years is, in my view, a very small percentage. I urge the Minister to press forward his plans.
I would like now to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two specific questions. Is he satisfied that there are today sufficient veterinary surgeons available for T.T. inspection purposes? I should be in entire agreement that it is of no value to the nation to press forward with this

long-term scheme, which is to divide the country up into areas, unless there are sufficient qualified veterinary surgeons to do the job satisfactorily. The Minister has told us that discussions are taking place in the industry to stimulate voluntary attestation, and that he hopes to introduce his eradication scheme. I do not think it would be right to ask where he proposes to introduce it, but I think it is proper to ask him when he proposes to introduce it, if his plans go according, to the timetable of the Bill. When does he propose to reintroduce payments for attested cattle? If he introduced bonus payments for cale and attested herds, would he take any action to deal with the present premium on T.T. milk? Or would he leave that as it was? Or would he alter the premium on T.T. milk so as to encourage more herds to become attested? These are specific questions of importance.
My final question on this part of the Bill really refers to a subject which it is not within the power of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to put right; on the other hand, it will be of great importance if this long-term scheme is to be a success. I refer to the disposal of milk from attested herds. I cannot vouch that all my facts are accurate in this regard, but there is a widespread belief—if I am wrong I hope the Minister will correct me—that in many instances this milk is added to the common pool and mixed with unclean milk. Surely, that makes nonsense of the whole thing, from the point of view of encouraging people voluntarily to enter a long-term scheme.
I admit there are great problems in this connection; but how can producers in all parts of the country, far removed from Westminster and the problems of the centre, believe that the Minister and the Government are in earnest when they find their neighbours taking great trouble, very often at great expense, to produce clean milk and become attested—and even when attestation is achieved, it is difficult to remain attested—only to see the milk put into the common pool with milk which may or may not be clean, from other parts of the country? I ask the Minister to see whether some action can be taken so that this glaring defect may be remedied in any long-term scheme which it is proposed to initiate to obtain voluntary entrants into an attested herd scheme.
Although my hon. and right hon. Friends have no objection to the principles in Part II of the Bill, we are not yet fully convinced that there is any necessity for it. The Minister explained the reasons why the Government think it necessary to extend the scope of the 1918 Act, and we agree there may have been a gap; but we are not certain that legislation is necessary to achieve the result the Minister desires. I have studied the 1918 Act, and the diseases which became set out are not actually specified; but I understand that, under common form in that Act, they are recognised as diseases constituting grounds for the refusal of a licence. Is the Minister satisfied that the diseases are all hereditary? Scientific evidence on this point is extremely slender, and is certainly contradictory, and before we pass any new Measure dealing with the licensing of stallions that aspect requires careful examination.

Mr. Paget: Would the hon. and gallant Member tell us which diseases he has in mind?

Sir T. Dugdale: No, I would not, because I am not a scientific expert. However, I know there is a dispute, and there are various points of view on what is hereditary and what is not.

Mr. Paget: I was merely asking whether the hon. and gallant Member could tell us about which diseases there was dispute.

Sir T. Dugdale: I am not prepared to do that this evening, because I think I should be wrong so to do in that it would draw attention to one particular disease. It would not be right in the House to mention any particular disease. It is a point worth examining, and I ask the Government to do so.
The Minister is wise in his exemptions, but I suggest that horses which have already reached the prescribed age—which I understand is over two years—should not be entirely exempted from the provisions of the Bill. In other words—is the Bill really necessary? If the Bill is necessary, and if horses of two years plus are exempted, the operation does not become effective for about To years, as I understand the position. I should have thought some figure such as five years or six years would have been better. I would certainly put a figure into the Bill. No doubt that is something we might con

sider during Committee. The Minister is right, too, in exempting thoroughbreds other than those travelling for purposes of breeding; but there is doubt whether the drafting of the Bill adequately performs what the Minister has in mind, and there seems to be some confusion.
Referring to the descriptions "the owner of a horse" and "the keeper of a horse," as I read the Bill the owner of a stallion might use it on his own premises, without a licence, allow mares belonging to the public to visit the stallion, and still be within the law. However, if the stallion were on a neighbouring owner's premises—as thoroughbred stallions often are—and performed exactly the same function in respect of exactly the same mares, the owner would be contravening the law. That is a small point, and one which we might consider in Committee. I believe it is meant to be covered, but as I read the Bill T am not happy that it is.
A more important matter in regard to thoroughbreds, which certainly ought to be cleared up before the Bill finally receives the Royal Assent, is the question of syndicated stallions. That is an entirely new departure in recent years. Many f these stallions have been bought overseas for very large sums; they do not belong to one owner, but are syndicated. Quite obviously, the Minister does not intend that they should be included within the operation of the Bill, and we must ensure such wording in the Bill as will leave no doubt when it becomes law. Such stallions are syndicated, probably kept at a well-known stud, and anybody wishing to have their services communicates with the manager of the stud. That point is not very clear, and is certainly worth scrutiny.
The Minister referred to what he had in mind in the passage "a pony of a prescribed breed"—namely, the various moorland and similar breeds which are kept in a wild state. Here, the Bill appears to be quite ridiculous—if I may use that expression—because apparently a pony stallion could walk along the road unaccompanied and the owner would be perfectly within the law, even without a licence. However, if somebody took hold of the stallion and, for safety's sake, walked it along the road, the owner would need a licence, or else be deemed to contravene the law. On my reading


of the law, I believe that to be the case, and I suggest that between now and the further stages of the Bill the Minister might consult the breed societies concerned to arrive at a better formula for inclusion in the Bill. It would seem curious that the owner would be within the law were the stallion loose, but would be contravening the law were it led.
I wish now to say a word about confirmation. There is much feeling in regard to who should be the judge of confirmation. It is perfectly right, as far as disease is concerned, that the veterinary surgeon should be the authority. I hope that when the Minister sets up his panel, confirmation will not be left entirely to the veterinary surgeons, but will be dealt with by experts on breeding, and preferably by nominees of the breeding societies. The Minister explained what he has in mind under Clause 4, which deals with permits. It would appear to deal with a very varied range of horses, from funeral horses to circus horses and sentimental horses. I have no doubt that the provisions will be used sparingly, but why, in this agreed Measure, should we have this tremendous dictatorship Subsection, providing that:
(2) The Minister may refuse to grant a permit, or may revoke a permit, on any grounds which appear to him sufficient, and may grant a permit subject to any conditions which he may think fit to impose?
We have had many arguments with the Minister on previous Bills about this matter, and we have always said that, providing he makes the decision himself, we are satisfied. This Subsection, however, gives tremendous powers to anyone who is acting on his behalf. Is it really necessary to have these powers? We do not think it is. The remaining Clauses follow very closely the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1937, and are for the most part machinery Clauses and I do not think that any comments are necessary upon them. No doubt, many of the points I have raised can be discussed during the further stages of this Measure, but the principles of both Part I and Part II, namely, to clean up the dairy herds and safeguard the wellbeing of our horse population, are, I am sure, in accordance with the wishes of every hon. Member. For that reason, we are prepared to wish the Bill well,

and to give it an unopposed Second Reading.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Alpass: I welcome this Bill, which is designed to continue the grants with the object of eliminating tuberculosis among our cattle. I am disappointed at the rate of progress which has already been made. I do not think anyone can contemplate with any degree of complacency the fact that unless much greater progress is made in the future, it will take 25 years before our herds are clear of this disease. Much stronger and more vigorous measures will have to be taken before we can achieve the desired result. I favour the establishment of a State veterinary service. I believe that there will have to be some degree of compulsion before we are able to achieve the progress we all desire. I am aware that this would mean a very large increase in the number of veterinary surgeons, but in this connection I am glad to note that the Minister has already taken steps to increase the number.
I hope that the number of veterinary surgeons will be increased as rapidly as possible, because statistics prove, without any doubt, that there is a very close connection between the incidence of disease among cattle and the proportion of veterinary surgeons to the number of cattle. I have seen figures showing that, with the exception of France, this country has a smaller number of veterinary surgeons than any other country with dairy herds. It is curious to note that this country has, with the exception of France, the greatest amount of preventible diseases.
I was discussing this matter yesterday with perhaps the greatest expert on this question in the country, Professor Bourtflower, who is head of the Royal Agricultural College at Cirencester. He suggested that one step which would have an important effect would be to prohibit any person starting dairy farming unless he held a certificate to the effect that his cattle were clean of disease. I think that much greater progress could be made, if we attempted to deal with this disease district by district and county by county. I believe that that has been done very successfully in the United States, and, as the Minister has said, in certain parts of Wales.
My second suggestion is that owners of known reactors should be prevented from


selling them to other farmers. Owners of cattle known to be affected have sent the cattle to the market without disclosing this information, with the result that disease has sometimes been spread to an alarming extent. I suggest that as soon as possible something should be done by regulation and order to prevent this practice. I regard this Bill as an instalment and only an instalment, of a broad and comprehensive Measure which has for its object the cleaning of all herds in this country of this disease, and ensuring the provision of pure milk to our people.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Hurd: I also wish to welcome this little Bill. Although it is a little Bill, it can lead to great things if the Minister will give dairy farmers and the veterinary service their head in clearing the country of bovine tuberculosis. The present Minister is always cautious. By this Bill he is continuing what has proved to be a good line, and that is giving grants to individual herd owners who can establish a clean bill of health. Some progress has been made, but it is only small. The Minister was good enough to give me some information, in reply to a Question today, on how the different counties are getting on with building up herds of attested cattle.
Under the Agriculture Act, 1937, which we are now extending by this Bill, we have spent £3,500,000. There are 13.9 per cent. of our cattle in Great Britain in the attested scheme. England has not come out too well in the picture, although I was delighted to see that my own county, Berkshire, and the counties of Surrey and Westmorland had topped 20 per cent. in the number of attested cattle in proportion to the total number of cattle in English counties. Scotland comes out much better, with some county figures of 79 per cent., 84 per cent., and, in Zetland, 99 per cent. That is a good beginning towards what the hon. Member for Thorn-bury (Mr. Alpass) and I want to see—a clean area. Wales has a good record—Cardigan and Carmarthen both running well over 60 per cent., but for the country as a whole the figure of 13.9 per cent. is not good going. I, personally, feel that the time has come for the Minister to give a much more vigorous lead in this matter. I am thinking not solely from the farmers' point of view, but of children who are still

being attacked by bovine tuberculosis. This is something which we should tolerate not a day longer than is necessary. We are only tinkering with this problem if we proceed by the cautious stages which the Minister promises us by this Bill.
We need more veterinary practitioners. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Thornbury about the desirability of a State veterinary service. Let us, first of all, see how we get on with the State human medical service before we apply a State service to animals. It is quite clear that we need not only more veterinary practitioners, which means more accommodation in the veterinary schools and better professional prospects. We must now face, too, the problem of providing some compensation for those farmers who are in an area where the majority have clean herds, but who themselves have not managed to get their own herds clean. I know of one case where a man is very keen, but he has met with some bad luck, and it looks as though it will be beyond his financial resources to catch up with his neighbours. There are some areas in Berkshire and Wiltshire, where local farmers would support the Minister wholeheartedly if he said that in a year's time, or two years', he would make a certain area, say, five miles by 10 miles, or whatever size he thought fit, into a clean area. That would be making a start, and the snowball would grow until the whole county, and then a group, would have been cleared.
I am a member of the Council of the Royal Agricultural Society, and from next year we intend to limit entries of cattle at the Royal Show to those from attested herds. There is the backing of the premier of the Agricultural Society in England. I should have thought that the Ministry of Agriculture would be in the van. We shall not have any clean areas by 1949, although the Royal Show will be clean. The Society have now sponsored a trophy to be given each year to the county which makes most progress under the attested herds scheme. I am sure that they would gladly alter the terms of the gift to enable the trophy to be given to the first area that becomes completely clean.
When the Minister was speaking, I asked him whether this new provision for attested farms would cover the upland


farms, where calves are reared not only for dairy herds but for beef herds. I was glad to hear him say that it would, because in my view it is vital, if dairy farms are to become clean, and keep clean, to have reservoirs in the uplands from which they can draw attested young stock which they know are clean and sound. I hope the Minister will give every encouragement to the rearing of more high quality dairy and beef calves under the attested scheme on upland farms. This applies particularly to Wales, as well as to the downland of the South of England.
I would like to say a few words about the second part of the Bill, which deals with heavy horse breeding. We are asked to approve further expenses under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918. We are to bring in licensing provisions to cover stallions that do not travel. The Minister said that this part of the Bill had the support of the farmers' unions and the horse breeding societies. I maintain, however, that the problem of licensing is not the most vital matter today. Horse breeding societies are passing through extremely bleak times, and I doubt whether the expenditure of effort, as well as money, on tinkering with the licensing provisions will really help them. I would like to read a paragraph from a letter which came to me front the secretary of the Tyneside Agricultural Society, which is in Mr. Speaker's Division—Hexham, Northumberland. It states:
In common with other societies who travel stallions my committee is now faced with a difficult position. Owners of stallions whom we have approached inform us that they cannot see their way to let horses to the society unless there is a guaranteed adequate return. It will readily he appreciated that with the present grants made by the Ministry, of £30 up to 60 mares, and an additional £10 afterwards, it is impossible to guarantee an adequate return to the owners.
This society wrote to the Minister on 4th November, urging him to revise the system of grants to enable them to carry on at the higher costs prevailing today. I have had a similar letter from a member of the Percheron Society, which is very anxious to get good stallions at work, and keep them at work. Horse breeding is on the decline through being unable to put out enough high quality stallions under the terms of the Ministry's grants. The Minister told me today that he was looking at this again, and I hope he will find means of modifying

his grant system to enable these societies to carry on their good work.
Some may think that with the advance of mechanisation heavy horses will not be needed. I may be old-fashioned, and a little cautious in my farming policy, but I still like one or two horses about the farm. I think they earn their keep. If we are to have horses, as I think we shall have for many years to come, let us see that they are good horses, and encourage the work of the horse breeding societies. The Minister was asked about this matter of grants back in November by the Tvueside Agricultural Society. It is now February, and the terms of the grants have not yet been adjusted to meet the needs of these societies. I hope that the necessary steps will now be taken to this end.
I welcome the Bill, and I hope that the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary will give us, in more definite terms, an undertaking that it will be used as a real opportunity to inspire the farming community to get rid of bovine tuberculosis. We can do this in a much shorter time than 25 years, but it will need a more vigorous lead from the Ministry than we are getting at the moment.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: It is extremely important that this Bill should continue the good work of the 1937 Act. Like other speakers in this Debate, I am very disturbed that it will take 25 years, at the present rate of progress, before we can clean up the herds of this country. The figure of one-eighth for clean herds for the whole of the country is far too low. It is, of course, not easy to see how a speed up can take place. Suggestions have been made, and I think that the Minister must think out, as soon as possible, how to speed up the rate of progress. I feel that I ought to disclose to the House that I am the owner of a tuberculin-tested herd, and, therefore, I have a personal interest in this matter. I have watched the growth of this slow process of cleaning up our herds for many years. Several false starts have been made. I remember that when we were starting this voluntary scheme a good many years ago we did not have the right serum, and I think that for a time we extended the disease instead of stopping it. We have now the right serum, and there is nothing to prevent us from going ahead.

Mr. Hurd: We think so.

Mr. Price: The trouble is that certain areas seem to be better favoured than others, but I do not think that that is necessarily because the farmers in the cleaner areas are better farmers than those in areas that are not so good. I am afraid that my own county of Gloucester is not very high up in the list.

Mr. Hurd: It is 8.6.

Mr. Price: Wales and Scotland are very good. I think that conditions are better in the mountainous and sparsely populated regions. In the low-lying heavily populated counties of England, with big markets and considerable turnovers of store stock, the contact is very much greater than in the areas where there is less tuberculosis. This evidence inclines one to think that climatic and geographical conditions, are a factor in this case. If that is so, we have to look for a remedy. I know small farmers in Gloucestershire Who have excellent herds with fine milking records, but they dare not go into the scheme because 30 per cent. of their herds would react, and they could not afford to do so. The big farmers are in a different position, and can much more easily stand the burden.
I am wondering whether we shall not have to consider some form of compensation in those areas where conditions are bad. I do not say that it should be on the same basis as that for foot and mouth disease, but that a certain percentage of the value of the animals should be paid to the owners especially of small herds to encourage them to come into the scheme. I do not know if that is workable, but I do not see why it should not be. Something like that would give a fillip, which is so necessary in some areas.
Then there is the important question of the dispersal of reacting herds. The hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) said that we ought to tackle this, and I agree with him. But I do not agree with him when he said that we ought to prevent the owner of a reacting herd from selling. He must get rid of his animals. I think there should be a scheme whereby these reactors should be taken over and disposed of for meat. Do not let us forget that a reactor may be a perfectly good animal

for the butcher. She may not even be giving tubercular milk. She may have tubercular adhesions causing reaction, but may otherwise be a perfectly sound economic animal. There should be some way by which that animal can be put into a pool and sold for meat after inspection. The present situation is most unsatisfactory. The disease is being spread by reactors being flung on the market where anyone can buy them, and they go into herds and increase the disease still further.

Mr. Alpass: Owners of known reactors should not be allowed to sell them to other farmers.

Mr. Price: If they are put on the market, farmers will get them all the same, and they will go about continuing to spread disease. But, I think that some method of pooling will have to be gone into if we are to have a stepping up of this scheme. I hope that the Minister will give this matter serious consideration so that we may get rid of this trouble much more speedily.
As regards Part II of the Bill, I agree with the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) that we still have need for horses in agriculture. A farmer must have up-to-date machinery, but he cannot do without one or two horses. There are all sorts of odd jobs for which it is cheaper to use horses than machinery. Moreover, the English thoroughbred still has its value, and is likely to have it overseas. There may well be a possibility of earning dollars or other hard currencies by the export of thoroughbred horses, and I know that breed societies are much concerned about some owners of stallions who keep them at home. Some may have disease, and disease is being spread about the country because of this so-called "pirate" stallion system. If it is possible to get stallions licensed, it will be a step in the right direction, and I am glad that the Minister has included that in the Bill.

8.20 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Bury St. Edmunds): I should very much like to continue the argument which has been joined in by Members on both sides of the House. The point which I should first like to make is that, in my opinion, we are going much too slowly in getting anywhere. I want to speak particularly on Part II of the Bill. I am afraid I cannot agree with my


hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) that this Bill is a step in the direction of progress. It is the other way round, for it is a step backward. It is not only another control on the wretched private owner but, as the Minister has told us, it represents an increased cost to the taxpayer. Not only is the Bill clumsy, but it is extremely untidy and absurd in places.
In the first place, I want to look at the position of our horse population. At the present moment, according to last June's returns, there are 597,000 horses; in 1918 on agricultural holdings alone we had 1,585,000. That is a very nasty outlook. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), I want to see a few more horses back on the farms, but this Bill is not going to help us to get them. We have today very highly organised breed societies, which did not exist in 1918. We have not got nowadays to provide a large number of troopers and light draughts as we had to then. If we are going to make it more difficult now for the owners of stallions we shall reduce the horse population rather than increase it. That confirms my view that by this Bill we are inclined to waste money. The Minister said it is going to cost us more than it has done since 1918. How can it when we had one and a half million horses then and have only half a million now? Surely there should be less work even if there are extra rules.
As regards the clumsy and untidy part of the Bill, I am glad to see that the thoroughbred stallion standing at home is to be excluded. We all know that a thoroughbred has to go through a severe test on the racecourse to prove its worth before it stands in the stud. Why is it necessary to put in the proviso in Clause 2 (2) laying down that if a thoroughbred stallion leaves its owner's premises it has to have a licence? That means that if an owner takes a stallion across the road into a neighbour's yard he has to have a licence for that stallion although it would serve exactly the same number of mares. Do not let us forget that often it is the mare which goes to the stallion rather than the stallion which goes to the mare. Mechanisation enables mares to be brought to where the stallion is standing rather than the stallion travelling round the countryside. At the same time, many stallions do not actually stand on their own premises.

Often they stand at someone else's yard, which is generally nearby, but, as I read the Bill, that cannot be done in future without a licence for the stallion. It seems to me that it is rather a slipshod way of tackling the matter.
The next question I want to ask is, who exactly is in charge of a stallion, the owner or controller? Where there is a thoroughbred stallion standing out is it fair that the stud groom or the small man who is actually looking after that horse should be considered the owner? The horse might be worth something like 50,000 and the stud groom or the small man has to stand all the racket because some particular form is not filled up or because the horse is not licensed. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond said, what about a syndicate owner or management committees that sometimes are employed by these syndicate owners? Generally there are several gentlemen on these management committees. Do they all get fined if something goes wrong? It is a nice way for the Government to make an easy bit of money, but it is not very fair.
The next matter I should like to raise is more of a Committee point but in a genral way it dos arise on the Second Reading. It arises on Clause 4 where it is left in the hands of the Minister to grant or not to grant permits or licences. We all know that the Minister has to take the advice of the man on the spot. It is not the Minister's advice, but advice which is given to him by somebody. Where a thoroughbred is being dealt with a very large sum of money might very well be involved. Is it fair to leave that in the hands of one individual who is a servant of the Minister? Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary does not like what I am saying.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I am wondering if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has got it right. The granting of a permit is not the same as the granting of a licence. The granting of a licence is under quite different conditions to the giving of a permit. A permit will not refer to a thoroughbred, standing or travelling.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: From the reading of the Bill I thought that was so and if I am wrong, I apologise. The next


point is in regard to the paragraph which says that where a notice is served it will be taken that whoever gets it will be responsible for notifying the owner. It may be given to a wretched fellow who has nothing to do with the horse itself, and if that is so why should he be responsible for a fault of the Ministry? This seems to me to be the most extraordinary pargaraph I have ever read. I hope to get those few points which I have raised talked about in Committee. I still feel that this part of the Bill is quite unnecessary at the present time when our horse population has dropped to such an appalling extent, and that it would be very much better to leave the matter in the hands of the breeding societies who are now working extremely well, have good stallions and have a reliable check on them.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: I have been interested in this subject for the last three years. Like the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price), I am an interested party. I am delighted that the Minister of Agriculture is continuing the scheme, but one took that for granted. I was sorry that the Minister did not tell us more about his real plans for speeding up the process. Though we may be quite pleased with the progress made since the end of the war, we still have a long way to go, and we ought to be considering how the progress can be increased. Those who have gone into the scheme are the most enterprising people, but as the scheme goes on there will come a time when it will be more difficult to make progress. Because farmers have nearly doubled the number of attested herds during the last three and a half years, it does not necessarily follow that they will double them again in a similar period. There are natural advantages and difficulties affecting different areas.
I come from Cumberland, between two areas which are remarkably free from tuberculosis. One is Westmorland, where 31 per cent. of the livestock are now free. The other is Ayrshire, where 79 per cent. are free. The reasons why they have done so well differ. There is a natural freedom from tuberculosis in Westmorland. We think it is because of the

limestone. It is certainly not because of good housing for cattle in that district. They do not have good housing. In Ayrshire, the Scots got up early in the morning and started this kind of thing before England was awake. In many ways they have improved their Ayrshire cattle very considerably. Long before we had a scheme there were breeders of pedigree Ayrshire cattle who were using the tuberculin test, and long before we had any scheme of attestation there was an area in Ayrshire which was quite free of tuberculosis.

Mr. Philips Price: Can the hon. Member give me the figures for Cumberland?

Mr. Roberts: I am coming to those. I shall not miss them. In many ways we can claim to be the top county in England. Though we have not got the highest percentage of attested cattle—the percentage is only 17.7—we have the greatest number of clean herds of any county. We have 783 farmers who have cleaned their herds, whereas Westmorland comes next with 616. The two counties together stand very well. Another reason why we do not get on faster in Cumberland is that the scheme applies effectively only to dairy cattle. I would like to know the percentage of dairy herds in the scheme in eaeh county. The information might be obtained from the Milk Marketing Board, which pays out the bonuses, and should know the total number of herds supplying them and the total number of herds which are drawing the T.T. or the attested bonus. I should have thought that the percentage of dairy herds declared must be considerably higher than the percentage of the total cattle in the country, because if we look at the list of counties we see that in the essentially arable counties, where the stock is mainly store stock for fattening, the percentage is very low because nobody bothers with the testing of their store stock.
That is a difficulty we have in Cumberland, a county where not only is dairying carried on but livestock are reared for stores and a certain amount of fattening goes on, and it is quite impossible to find any regular supply of store stock to bring on to an attested farm. Therefore, if one has an attested dairy one cannot within the attested boundary also trade in store stock. There ought to be some greater inducement to those who


rear and deal in store stock to have them tested and to provide a reservoir of attested tuberculosis-free stores so that dairy farmers who are not solely dairy farmers but also go in for fattening can keep their attested dairy stock and yet buy attested stores. That would help to increase the total number of cattle which are free and bring in more farmers who hesitate to come in now because they need to buy stores at some times of the year.
My chief feeling about this Bill is that it still leaves our greatest difficulty untackled. It does not show any real determination on the part of the Ministry to hurry the cleaning of our stock. However, the greatest difficulty and the greatest obstacle in the way of further progress is an administrative one, the multiplicity of authorities which have to deal with all matters concerning dairies. Hardly an authority in the country does not come into it at some point. Suppose one wants to clean one's herd of tuberculosis. One goes to the Ministry of Agriculture and its vets. When one has done that, one wants to qualify for the higher bonus for T.T. milk which comes ultimately under the Ministry of Health. One gets only 1d. per gallon for having one's cattle free from tuberculosis and one gets another 3d. if one complies with the Ministry of Health's ideas about clean milk.
One therefore goes to the Ministry of Health and then to one's local authority. It is the county council which grants the licence, hut it is the rural district council which looks at one's buildings. If the rural district council says that one must improve one's buildings, off one goes to the town and country planning people to get approval for the alteration of one's building and to the Ministry of Supply for permits to get one's licences for the building. If I strayed into that any further, I should be outside the scope of this Bill, but it is relevant to point out that in the chain of procedure for cleaning up the dairy herds and providing a disease-free supply of milk, the wretched farmer has to deal with half a dozen or more different authorities and Ministries.
I am disappointed that when this opportunity for renewing this admirable Act arose, the Ministry, who have been in consultation with everybody concerned for the last two years or more, could not pro?

duce a much more comprehensive scheme to cover these difficulties, to cover the question of the eradication areas, and to point to the time, which has arrived in some areas, when the eradication areas, where a few people may stand in the way, perhaps not because of their fault but because of special difficulties, might be declared.
This Bill is generally an uninteresting repetition of what has been done before. It produces nothing new as far as tuberculosis is concerned, and it is exceedingly disappointing that now, when the agricultural community is on its toes and is showing, by getting results under the old procedure, that it is ready to do this, the Government have not given a greater lead. I believe there is an opportunity to make a great step forward now, and I hope that, in replying, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to show that something is going on. Maybe agreement has not been reached, maybe it requires more money than the Treasury want to give at present, but we would like to have some indication that consideration is being given to greater output. If the shortage is of vets, what is being done about providing more of them? Let us be assured that the Government are not quietly sitting back and, having taken power to renew a prewar Act, expecting that this job will take a quarter of a century.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Dye: May I follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) in dealing with the first part of this Bill as it applies to dairy herds and the eradication of tuberculosis? Could we not expect the Ministry to gather together all those responsible for the administration of this Measure to see if they cannot find a way to hurry up its progress? As has been said already, the county councils come in through their medical officers of health, the rural district councils come in through their sanitary inspectors, the war agricultural committee comes in, and also the Ministry's veterinary inspectors and the Milk Marketing Board. When the Government come along at this time of day only to continue what has been done in the past, and one realises that they have covered only one-eighth of the dairy herd population of the country, it is a disappointment to hon. Members on this side of the House.
Certain parts of the country are almost free from tuberculosis, some have made good progress, others have made very little. What is the reason? Surely the Ministry ought to find out why some areas lag behind? It is true that those lagging behind are areas with a greater density of cattle population, but that is an added reason why those areas should be dealt with much more speedily than at present. Although this Bill deals only with the cattle population, tuberculosis is present also in pigs and poultry, and if the main purpose of the Bill is to eradicate tuberculosis from all animals to prevent it spreading to human beings, we must give attention to all livestock on the farms.
We are told the main reason for the present rate of progress is the limited number of veterinary surgeons available to operate the scheme. I may be somewhat unorthodox to suggest it, but surely it would be possible to train other people, not as veterinary surgeons, but as assistants, who could help carry out the work under the supervision of veterinary surgeons? It does not require a fully trained veterinary surgeon to carry out all the work in connection with the testing of cattle.
I urge the Minister to see if his agricultural executive committees cannot take a more progressive view, at least in some counties of this aspect of their work. Recently, I have drawn the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture to a case in my division of a farmer who has taken over some rather backward pasture land, thoroughly drained it, and cleaned it up, and now wishes to proceed with a dairy herd free from tuberculosis. He asked the committee whether they would give their support to the necessary buildings and cottages, so that a modern dairy farm could now take the place of what in the past has been semi-derelict land; but the committee have stated that they would not give their support to such a venture.
Surely this aspect of dairy farming, and the improvement of dairy herds, should find in the committees and their officers people who are enthusiastic and willing to support every farmer who wants to make progress. I ask the Minister to see if he cannot get the agricultural executive committees and all

other authorities administering the present scheme to devise ways and means of speeding up its operation so that we can have our dairy herds and all cattle clean and free from tuberculosis, and attention can be given to other animals on the farm, as well.
Probably my views on Part II of the Bill differ from those of other hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate. So far as I can see, the decrease in the number of horses on the farms is going on so rapidly that in 10 or 20 years there will be very few draught animals left, or needed, on the farms of this country. There will always be fanciers who want to see a lovely horse, to stroke its mane and ride it occasionally. But, if we wish to increase food production in this country, we should get some experienced people from the engineering industry with tractors and other implements, for those are the means by which we shall increase the production of food from the arable areas and maintain the agricultural population. I do not think the Government are putting their money on the right horse in Part II of the Bill. I would very much rather they backed the steel horse and saw that those who are manufacturing tractors and other implements for agricultural purposes have all the steel they require, and get them on to the farms to enable the farmers to produce a greater quantity of food.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: I wish to enlarge on some of the remarks made on Part II of the Bill. I agree with the Minister this is the right time to bring in a Bill, because during the war we have got rid of a great many scrub stallions, and we can now start afresh. The Bill as at present drafted, however, is scarcely worth putting before Parliament. I can see a good many flaws in it, and although the Minister says that breed societies have agreed to it—I know they have been consulted—they have not had any time to call meetings and really give it their considered opinion. I was indeed glad to hear the Minister say that he was open to every kind of suggestion that would improve the Bill, and that he would do what he could to include our suggestions. Accordingly, I shall make some.
One of my hon. Friends has asked why only the young stallions are to be licensed.
It seems quite illogical to license the young stallions which will reach the age of two in the future and not all that already exist in the country. No reason has been convincingly given for doing that. The old stallions may go on for 10, 12, it may he 15 years, producing progeny when they themselves are quite unsound. There may be great difficulties in covering the whole of the country. It may even make one or two people bankrupt and cause trouble and concern, but the Minister did not tell us that. Unless he can put forward some weightier reasons, I consider that all animals should be covered by the Bill.
The next weakness is that thoroughbreds are exempt. Thoroughbreds are an important export, and the credit of this country should be upheld by the soundness of its thoroughbreds. Why are thoroughbreds exempt? The temptation to keep an unsound thoroughbred is far greater than the temptation to keep a minor class of stallion because the fees which a thoroughbred can command are much higher. Therefore, the temptation is much greater. One might find a case of a little man in a country village who keeps a half-bred stallion, and who is subject to the requirement of having to license his stallion, whereas his competitor across the road who has a thoroughbred, which may be a roarer, blind in one eye, have spavin and ringbone, does not require to have any licence. Why is that? A thoroughbred which is unsound can cause as much trouble, can do as much harm as any horse or pony in the country.
There is another anomaly about exempting thoroughbreds. Arab horses are entered partly in the Arab stud book and partly in the appendix to the general stud book. That means that the Arabs in the general stud book are to be exempt and the Arabs in their own stud book will require to have a licence. If that is so it seems that something should be done to put the Bill straight. The third weakness is that prescribed breeds are exempt. The reason for that is that it is difficult to catch ponies that are running on the moor and give them a licence, but I wonder if it is impossible? The rams on the Welsh hills are all rounded up each year and are under control, and members of a Welsh breed society think it would be possible to control the stallions there. There are many

scrub stallions quite unsuitable for breeding running over the hills. It would be much better to take them away and vastly improve the breed. The Minister should talk this over carefully with the societies or with anyone who knows the possibilities of controlling these animals. If he thinks it could be done he should bring such a provision into the Bill at a later stage.
If this is not possible, the Bill proposes to prescribe certain breeds which are to be exempted. We understand that those are the mountain and moorland breeds—Dartmoor, Exmoor, Welsh, Shetlands, and so on. Would it not, therefore, be better, instead of prescribing certain breeds by name, to state in the Bill that those animals running wild in their native surroundings should be exempted? There is no reason why, because a man living in the North of England, or near London, keeps a Dartmoor stallion in his stud that it should be exempted from having a permit, any more than any other breed of horse.
The other weakness in the Bill is that licences are to become permanent. At present they are issued annually. A horse very seldom develops a scheduled disease when it is two years old. It is when it becomes an old horse that it goes wrong in its heart, its wind, or eye, or whatever it may be. Once the permit has been given, the Minister has told us that the animal is open to an annual inspection. That is not in the Bill. It merely states that a great deal of money is going to be saved because licences are made permanent, instead of annual. The Minister gave us his assurance that an annual inspection will be made, but that is not enough. Why not put it in the Bill? We should then be satisfied that the licensing system was thorough and the Bill worth while.
The last weakness concerns the list of diseases. The Minister said there was no need to change the list. I am not going to suggest any other diseases which should be included, but I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the next paragraph of these regulations, which says that any horse that "goes in the wind" after it is nine years old is all right, and can have a licence. Because a horse "goes in the wind" when it is nine years old, a licence can be granted, but if it "goes in the wind" when it is eight


years old a licence cannot be granted. I do not know why. It does not make sense.
A great deal depends on the veterinary surgeons who are going to give these licences. I hope the Minister will choose the right men and pay them well in order to encourage the best types to come forward to get on the Minister's rota. I welcome the Bill, if my suggested improvements are included. It is essential that thoroughbreds should be included. It should also be stated in the Bill that there is to be an annual inspection. I hope the Minister will reconsider including all existing stallions, or else give a valid reason for not doing so, and that he will consider what I have said about the mountain and moorland breeds.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Scott-Elliot: I wish Ito confine myself entirely to Part I of this Bill. Like the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye), I suffer from a certain degree of disquiet at the slow progress which has been made in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. There have been all kinds of difficulties on account of the war, but nevertheless progress has been very slow indeed.
I do not want to say anything contentious about this, but we in Scotland have a slightly better record than exists in England. Nevertheless, I want to give a practical example of the state of affairs in my own county. Recently I had occasion to be present at the examination of 40 heifers. Many of them were shepherd-bred heifers from the hills, not a bit likely to be suffering from bovine tuberculosis. However, of those 40, only 25 passed the veterinary surgeon, eight were declared to be reactors and seven were described as being doubtful. It is probable that the seven doubtfuls were unlikely to pass, from what I heard the surgeon say. Therefore, it may be said that 15 of the 40 failed in the test. That was in an area which is supposed to be one of the best in the country.
That is only the beginning of the story. A heifer when young is far less likely to be a reactor. When she is older she is more likely to be suffering from tuberculosis and to give milk unfit for human consumption. How are we to get rid of this state of affairs? Of course, we have

the system of the attested herd, but we must go beyond that. We must build up a system of attested areas into which no one will be allowed to bring cattle which are non-attested. I know that there are great difficulties in that respect. Probably it would be easier to do that in counties like Dumfriesshire, Kirkcudbrightshire, and the Lowlands of Scotland, than elsewhere. In those parts of Scotland we have a large number of beef-type cattle—black Galloways—which are not normally subject to tuberculosis. Indeed it is very rare for a Galloway cow to be found to be a reactor.
We must try to build up in one part of the country an attested area which will be an example to the rest of the country. We must do that by means of a price differential in respect of attested material. I think that ultimately we ought to put such a premium on the production of attested milk that it will be made worth while to produce it. Next, it must be done with the assistance of the money which it is proposed to spend under this Bill. Finally, it must be brought about by the system of scheduling certain attested areas which we hope will henceforth be free from tuberculosis.
My final point is that it may be that we have been trying to produce in this country cattle which produce too much milk. I believe that that is so. We have been trying to force nature too much. I know that in certain cases it has undoubtedly caused diseases, such as mastitis, when farmers have attempted to make cattle produce more milk than nature meant them to give. May it not be that that suggestion is equally applicable in the case of tuberculosis? What we want to produce is healthier cattle which will not have to be destroyed at the end of two, three or four years. We want to produce cattle which will continue to be useful and which will not be a loss to the farmer. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary would do very well to bear that in mind.

9.4 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I wish to speak about Part I of the Bill. There is one consideration which should be borne in mind in regard to attested herds. This affects particularly the Jersey and Guernsey breeds. I am interested in the Jersey breed. As far as I know, in the island of Jersey bovine tuberculosis


has been eradicated completely. I am not certain about the position in Guernsey. I have been in touch with people in Jersey who have confirmed that animals which come from a perfectly clean island sometimes react when they get to this country. I believe that climate is in some way connected with this position. I suggest that the Minister might have gone a little further in dealing with this point.
The time is approaching when we must consider the possibility that animals coming into this country from outside should be held for a time in a pool area. Especially will that be true when the Minister establishes his free area, as it will be most essential that he should form an area, where imported cattle can go for a period which I think should be 60 days. I hope he will give that matter consideration, because I believe that it is not always the fault of the farmer when a cow which has come from the islands reacts. It may sometimes be, but more often than not it is the case, when cows react, that it is because the germs have been dormant and have only come out when the cow becomes subject to certain climatic changes. I hope the Minister will bear that point in mind.
There is, of course, no doubt that, however estimable the continuation of Part I of this Bill may be, nevertheless there are other things which are of equal importance in eradicating bovine tuberculosis. I suggest that the Minister should visit some of the attested sales, because, although the rules for running an attested herd may be obeyed in the herd, I do not believe that they are always obeyed at sales. So far as the cleanliness of cattle is concerned, it is most noticeable sometimes that there are, in the sale yard, attested cattle, supposed to have come from an attested herd, in a condition which can only be described as filthy. That is contrary to all the rules and regulations laid down for the production of T.T. milk. One wonders whether, in such cases, the supervision is always as good as it should be.
I hope the Minister will realise the difficulty which confronts the farmer trying to run an attested herd. If he has a large number of cows and is milking them three times a day, and if his labour is short, he will skimp the various things that should be done from the point of view of the production of clean milk. There

is no one factor which would more assist the production of clean milk in this country than an increase in the labour force. There is no doubt that the Women's Land Army has played a very great part in this direction, and I am glad that the Minister is going to continue them. I hope he will realise that manpower is the fundamental problem in this question, and that, however necessary Part I of this Bill may be, it will not achieve its purpose unless the men are there to see that the various rules and regulations are carried out.
So far as the Second Part of the Bill is concerned, I think that every horse in the nation has been covered, except Pegasus on the arms of the Airborn Division and the horses of the Household Cavalry. I believe that the Minister might have paid rather more tribute to the breeding societies than he has done, because I believe they have done very good work. I know that, in my own constituency, they have achieved results which are outstanding in quality. I thought that the Minister's opening remarks tonight rather seemed to imply that these breeding societies have not been able to carry out their job properly in regard to purifying the various breeds. I hope he does not mean that, and that if he does not, the Parliamentary Secretary will clear up the matter when he replies.
I believe that it is right that stallions should be treated equally, whether they serve at home or go out, but all these licences are new forms of control—and I think the right hon. Gentleman has a perfectly good idea of what I think of controls. It is a poor reward for these societies who have shown that private individuals can get together and can purify the breed themselves, without the Minister forcing it down their throats and without compulsion of any sort being used. I resent every increase in compulsion which this Government introduce, and I believe that, in this particular case, it is only equity to bring all stallions under the same ruling. Perhaps, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite so often say, this is a tidier way of doing things. Personally, I believe we shall never make agriculture really tidy, and I am not sure that we shall ever make horse-breeding really tidy. I hope the Minister will realise that the more these societies improve their breeds, the less need there is for any of this. Let us hope the day will come when it will he possible


to lift all these horrible restrictions because of the fact that the societies will be doing their job without any Ministerial threats.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Boyle: In a very few words, I wish to make some comments on Part I of the Bill from a different point of view from any that has already been expressed. I shall not refer to Part II of the Bill because, frankly, I know nothing about it.
With regard to tuberculosis in animals, I have to plead guilty, like others before me, of being an interested party. In my case, however, I am at the receiving end, and not the producing end. I am concerned because in the Debate tonight not sufficient stress has been laid on the beef side. I entirely agree that the milk side is a very important one indeed, but I do not think we stress often enough how tubercular cattle affect our beef production and our production wastage. I have had some experience of standing in large abattoirs in this country, and seeing, day after day, bodies of beef hanging there raked from end to end because for generations we have failed to tackle this problem as strongly as we ought to have done.
In the Manchester abattoir, of which I have the greatest experience, hundreds of tons of beef are destroyed every year as the result of the ravages of tuberculosis. This causes great concern, not only to people interested in the sale of beef, but also to the general public who, month by month, read reports in local newspapers of the amount of meat which has been condemned by local authorities. Very often they get the wrong impression because of the colossal figures given in the Press. During the time of control, this has been more evident than it ever was before, because we find that individuals are going round the country buying up cows from the farmers which, in normal times, would only have found their way to the knacker's yard. These dealers are prepared to take the gamble of bringing that type of animal to our abattoirs because of the price being paid by the Ministry. Therefore, people are liable to get the wrong impression as to the amount of meat which is being used today in that regard compared with prewar days.
I am concerned with the pessimism which the Ministry of Agriculture have

expressed in this Bill. When it is contemplated that we may not eradicate this menace for another 25 years, I am astounded. For very many years now we have had what I would call the battle of the scrub bull." This problem has been before the Ministry of Agriculture for a long time, but we are still talking about the probability of wiping it out in 25 years from now. I hope the Ministry will take stronger measures for the reduction of the evil, because I am quite certain that it can be done in much less time than 25 years. I wish to stress that not only is there a great danger from the milk aspect, but that every year hundreds of tons of good beef are being wasted because this problem has not been tackled as energetically as it should have been. My experience has shown me that week by week there are coming into the abattoirs of Britain cattle raked from end to end with disease, which a few hours before were giving milk. I welcome the Bill and I am glad to see this legislation going through, but I hope we shall be able to eradicate the trouble in much less time than is provided for in the Bill.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I speak at some disadvantage. Unfortunately, my train was late, and I have not been able to gather the gist of the arguments which have been advanced in the Debate. However, I gather that the main criticism from both sides of the House has been that we are not getting on fast enough with the eradication of tuberculosis. I entirely agree with that criticism. The hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle), who spoke about beef which was raked with disease, will agree, I think, that the beef of which he spoke was probably from old much cows which had been made into beef, and not the beef breed of cattle.

Mr. Boyle: Sometimes they are heifers.

Mr. Baldwin: I agree they sometimes are, but usually the beef breeds of cattle are entirely free from tuberculosis.
The Minister must not mark time in his endeavours to eradicate the disease. If he does so, those farmers with T.T. cattle surrounded by other cattle which are not tuberculin tested will gradually give up the battle and go out of the job altogether. I ask the Minister to hasten the eradication of this disease. I know


that one of the difficulties is the great shortage of the necessary veterinary personnel. I hope that difficulty will be overcome in a short time, so that steps will be taken to clear areas. I know that the job cannot be done in a hurry. If we tried to deal with all the milk herds in a period of two or three years, and condemned, the reactors to be sold ac, beef, there would be a great shortage el milk. The position at the moment is rather farcical. It seems wrong that a farmer with a T.T. herd may take his reactors to market and sell them to his neighbour for the purpose of producing milk, but that must be the case anal we can get a sufficient number of T.T. cattle in existence.
Another state of affairs which is rather farcical is that of the farmer with the T.T. herd surrounded by seven or eight neighbours whose herds are not T.T. I know the rule is that the hedges should be double banked, but it is no good double banking the hedges if there is a footpath or a bridle way running through the field with a stile, because if the cattle from the clean herd want to say nice things to the cattle on the other side of the hedge they can easily do so over the stile, and there is no use in having a double fence round the field. If there is a right of way, a cart track or a bridle road through the field, it is rather difficult to put up two gates. I hope the Minister will take account of that matter.
Another matter which requires attention—I do not know whether it has been mentioned in this Debate—concerns the men who milk the cattle. If I were offered milk from a T.B. cow which was milked by a T.B.-free man, I would much rather have that milk than milk from a T.T. cow milked by a T.B. man. If the cattle are to be cleaned up we must see that the men who milk them are free from T.B. as well. I just wanted to say those few words to support those who have urged the necessity for speeding up this job and getting some areas, at any rate, cleared as quickly as possible.
It seems that the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) rather wanted to encourage the Minister to get on with the production of more steel for motor tractors so that horses could be done away with altogether. I hope that doctrine will not be preached. It is entirely wrong to use a great tractor

to draw a light lorry with a hundredweight of hay in it. That is a job that ought to be done with a horse. It is uneconomic to use a tractor for it. I hope the Minister will not discourage the keeping of horses on the farms. I know our young men do not like to put in extra time to look after the horses, and that farmers are consequently driven to give up the use of horses—unless they look after their horses themselves. Some of our young men are becoming too mechanically minded—so much so that I have sometimes told my friends that we shall see them using tractors to take themselves to bed.

9.21 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I understand that no one from Scotland has taken part yet in this Debate, and I am induced to enter it only because of some observations made by the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye). The Bill deals with two aspects of agriculture, the first of which is the expenditure of some £2,500,000 on the improvement of our dairy herds. Although I myself have recently entered the field of agriculture, it is not on that subject I want to speak. I notice that the second part of the Bill deals with the subject of horses. Some £2,000 rising to £5,000 a year is to be spent by this great country of ours in improving our horses, and that is in addition to the £20,000 which is spent under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918.
The hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk has brought me to my feet because he does not seem to share his fellow countrymen's great love of horses. When once before, one spoke disparagingly of Scotland and flatteringly of horses, referring to the fact that in Scotland oats are fed to people, but that in England they feed them to horses, the reply was: "What men, and what horses!" This old-fashioned regard for the horse, which I thought was characteristic of every Englishman, seems not to exist in the mind of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk. He commends the urbanisation of our countryside. He sees a picture, not of horsemen looking after their animals, but a picture of industrial workers from the towns. What he wants to see in England's green and pleasant land is the tractor. While that may he attractive to those who are seeking to


organise industry on trade union lines, it is quite foreign even to my simple conception of rural life.
I put it to the hon. Member—who seems to have left the House—and to the House generally, that there is something more important involved here even than the Englishman's love of horses, more even than our desire to improve and to maintain the use of our horses in this country. If agriculture is, as we believe it to be, the permanent mainstay of our life, our sure anchor in every circumstance, are we to bind our agriculture to imported petrol? If we cannot even obtain basic petrol for our citizens in peace time are we to tie our agriculture to imported petrol? Horses eat no imported food. Are we to substitute in the place of the horse the mechanical tractor that consumes imported petrol? I submit that if there is difficulty—and there is, admittedly, great difficulty in finding petrol in a normal year of peace at least two and a half years after the war is over, there is hound to be difficulty in finding petrol—

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what the Bill has to do with petrol.

Sir W. Darling: A little earlier, reference, was made to the fact that we should discard the proposals of the Bill, which favour the extension and improvement of horse-breeding in this country, and substitute petrol-driven machinery. It was that argument, Sir, which I sought to rebut, but if you disapprove I will not pursue that line of argument, but will deal more closely with the Bill. The interest of the Government in this subject is valuable, and is appreciated. My own complaint would be that the sum of £2,000 to £5,000 a year is perhaps too little to maintain and improve the stock of what has been a typical and traditional British animal—an animal associated with our country for many generations, which will, I believe, inevitably and continuously be associated with us as long as we desire a stable, sound and characteristic agricultural industry.

9.26 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): We have had a very interesting Debate—not least interesting in its last few minutes. However, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling)

seemed to have his figures, like his petrol, rather mixed up. In Part I of the Bill we provide for an ultimate expenditure, when all our discussions are concluded, of a sum many times that which he mentioned. The figure he had in mind was one which might be involved under Part II. It is not £2,000 or £5,000 in addition to the £20,000 provided in the a 918 Act, as I understood him to say, but only within the limits of the provisions of the 1918 Act. We expect the expenditure to be something of the order of £5,000. However, that is dealt with purely in Part II and has nothing to do with the keeping of cows, which comes under Part I.

Sir W. Darling: It was perfectly obvious to me that the sum under Part I, of £2½ million, is connected with bovine tuberculosis, and that the sum of £2,000 or £5,000 dealt with the balance.

Mr. Brown: I am glad to have given the hon. Member the opportunity to make himself clear.
We are pleased that this modest Bill has achieved such a wide measure of support in the House. Apart from the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown), who seemed to take a not too high view of some parts of the Bill, it has received general support. However, there has been a tendency to speak as though the Government are lacking in that revolutionary ardour which now characterises the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), or are pessimistic as the hon. Member for West Salford (Mr. Royle) said, because the provisions in Part I merely seek to keep alive powers which would otherwise die later this year. There is no ground for assuming that in regard to bovine tuberculosis the Government are in any way lagging behind other quarters of the House in their sense of urgency. There is a great deal of difference between saying that a lot of revolutionary, exciting and dramatic things ought to be done—and I was glad the lion. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) dealt with one just now—and getting down to practical means of getting rid of reactors, and getting the areas clean. The Government recognise that a good deal of work has to be done and are busily engaged on it.
As the hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) mentioned, the theme song generally has been: What are


the limiting factors? Is there any obstacle to going on faster than we seem to be doing under this Bill? Well, there are limiting factors. One is, unquestionably, the supply of veterinary surgeons. A great deal of discussion has taken place between the Government and various responsible bodies to see what can be done to increase the potential supply of veterinary surgeons and folk entering this field, in order to remove that bottleneck. At a later stage we shall hope to be able to present something to the House in that regard. We shall press on with it. Recently, we have introduced a modification of the old testing arrangement, under which, as I understand it, veterinary surgeons had to visit a herd three times in order to take two tests. We have now modified that, so that only one test is required, with only two visits to the herd. That will also help us to push on a bit faster. The supply of veterinary surgenos is unquestionably a limiting factor.
On the other hand, the progress has not been so slow as some have been inclined to suggest. We began the attested scheme in 1935, but in fact it had a clear run only until 1939 It was then in cold storage until 1944. Therefore, it has run for about seven years. In that time, we have gone from 1,400 attested herds in 1935, to well over 30,000 in 1947. We are apt to forget the gap which the war years imposed on us. Therefore, we have made very considerable progress. We agree that we want to make faster progress and we are having discussions in the industry with the farmers' unions and all the bodies involved as to the next steps. We believe that progress with the voluntary scheme, that is the individual herd being attested, is essential. No compulsory scheme could be effective until we have made more progress with the voluntary scheme. We believe that we need the powers in this Bill to stimulate greater progress with the voluntary scheme.
We are discussing with the industry a much bigger scheme—the freeing of areas and the compulsory measures that may be involved. We shall press on just as quickly as we can to get an agreement, and to get rid of these various limiting factors. The point was made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), which was taken up by other Members, that it would take 25 years to complete this task. Upon

that point hung a good deal of the comments which have been made about slowness. In taking these powers, in the first case for 10 years, and then for three consecutive five-year periods by Resolution of the two Houses, we do not imply that it will take 25 years. On the other hand, we think it is right that we should take the powers for this period. Just how long it will take will depend upon the things I have mentioned.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also asked when area schemes would be introduced. It is impossible to say in advance of a successful conclusion of our discussions and of the progress we make with the voluntary scheme. I was also asked whether the quality premium on T.T. milk will be reduced. It is our hope and intention, when we introduce regulations providing for attested bonus payments, to make some modifications in the quality premiums paid in respect of T.T. milk by the Minister of Food. This is one of the things we shall have to discuss, and we must bear in mind the balance of the need for stimulation as against any unreasonable State expenditure. As to the disposal of T.T. milk, that is a matter for the Minister of Food. I understand that it is largely a question of transport. It is a matter in which we are very much in agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised the question of the diseases set out in the regulations made under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918. He asked whether we were satisfied with these. As I am advised, that list of diseases was drawn up on very good veterinary advice, and our experts tell us that we have had no complaints about it. If, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will let me have any complaints showing that something is wrong, we shall be glad to look into the matter. As it is, we believe that it commands general assent within the industry.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, and another of his hon. Friends, raised the question of the exemption of the stallion which is aged two years plus at the date of the Bill. We have been told that if we are to make the Bill properly effective we ought to provide for an age of five or six years. On this matter, we shall be very much guided by the view of the House and the Committee on the


Bill. We feel that there is a balanced argument here—on the one side, not to ride roughshod over the people who are involved and, on the other, to be guided by the feeling of Members on the later stages of, the Bill.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Richmond also asked about the syndicated imported stallion. The stallion which is not in the General Stud Book will require a licence. He already requires a licence if he travels for service; if he is not in stud book he will require a licence at home. Into the harmony of the general support for this Bill one or two discordant notes were thrown, particularly by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Richmond, who talked about a "dictatorship" arising under Clause 4 (2). He said that the Minister was taking power, in cases where a licence would not be permitted—perhaps because of something being wrong with the animal—to issue a permit rather than to require the owner to castrate or shoot the animal.
We thought we were trying to be rather more than usually friendly, that we were not being awkward or dictatorial, and I was therefore sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed rather to bite the hand which, though perhaps not quite feeding him, was helping him along the way. The grounds on which a permit will be granted are not those on which a licence will be granted. This is very much an administrative matter. It is difficult to put grounds into the Bill. The animal may be an exotic zoological specimen, the last of its strain, or may be liked sentimentally by its owner. We feel that this kind of thing must be left to the administrative discretion of the Minister.
I was interested to hear the argument, begun by my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass), and taken up by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), about a national veterinary service. My hon. Friend seemed to think that we ought to have a national service, but the hon. Member for Newbury said that we should not have such a service until we had seen how the national medical service had worked in respect of human beings. Do they realise that we have had a form of national veterinary service for the last II years? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury, who is usually so far in front in these matters,

and the hon. Member for Newbury, who usually knows the pros and cons, although he may perhaps sometimes fall on the wrong side, did not realise, when they began their little argument, that we have had a national veterinary service for some time—

Mr. Hurd: The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Thornbury (Mr. Alpass) was that we should have a complete State veterinary service, to which I objected.

Mr. Brown: We have had a State veterinary service since 1937, composed of some 300 members, who are doing valuable work. I pay a great tribute to the Socialist foresight of the Conservative Government of that day, which set up that service and which we ought not to disown now. The point made about the selling of reactors; their culling or their slaughter is important, but it would be very difficult to deal with it in the cavalier way which was suggested. There would be a catastrophic drop in milk production and in cattle generally if that were done. It must be done as a process.
The hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown) suggested that Part II of the Bill was another control on the "wretched private owner." He seemed to be in splendid isolation, because I gather that the only regret of other hon. Members opposite was that the control is not enough. The cost which we envisage will still be within the limit of the 1918 Act—the £20,000 limit under the Horse Breeding Act—and any loss will be because we are relieving the "wretched owner," as he put it, from having to apply for a licence every year. We are giving him one licence, and I think that the hon. Member will probably thank us for that, because we are helping the people for whom he was so concerned.
With regard to the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), it was by no means the intention of my right hon. Friend to imply that the breeding societies had not done their job. We believe that they have, and we have had the greatest help from them in working out these proposals. I understand that they welcome the provisions of the Bill from the point of view of improving their livestock. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that a new liability was being imposed with regard to thoroughbreds which travel. Thoroughbreds which travel have


always had to have a licence under the 1918 Act, and this Bill imposes no fresh liability.
The hon. Member for North Cumberland (Mr. W. Roberts) referred to beef herds, and the powers under the 1937 Act, Section 20, extended by this Bill to make a capitation payment for beef herds if the producer wishes to take it in that form. In general, dairy herds are in the majority in the attested scheme, but there are beef herds in the scheme, and we hope to give a general incentive in that way. The hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) accused us of "backing the wrong horse" and said that we ought to put our money on tractors. Whatever the argument about that, there will be horses for some time yet, and we ought not to exclude any opportunity of making sure that we are getting a better standard of horse as of other animals. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me on that.
That brings me to the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) who said that there were flaws in the Bill, and that the breed societies would be having meetings with hon. Members when they would be able to point out the flaws from which I gathered that the hon. Member himself would in later stages of the Bill refer to some of those flaws. I should like to repeat what I said at the beginning and what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister in introducing the Bill, that we shall be very willing to receive representations from any quarter about this Bill. What we are aiming at is to get the best we can for the industry and for the health of the nation. In achieving those ideals it would be silly to be starchy and hidebound. We shall listen carefully to anything any hon. Member has to say and to consider suggestions which they or anyone else may make for the Bill's improvement. I do not think there were any other points of substance raised during the Debate. A large number of points which I have not covered have been carefully noted and will be considered. They will also be dealt with during later stages of the Bill. With these words I cordially commend the Second Reading to the House.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: May I draw attention to what must appear to many hon. Members to be a serious

matter of drafting in this Bill, namely, the enormous amount of legislation by reference in it? Although I have no intention of opposing the Bill I cannot help saying that it appears to be one of the worst examples we have ever had of the complicated process of legislation by reference. If we are to understand these things in the way we should, it is absolutely essential that legislation should be made clear when dealing with any branch of agriculture. I seriously ask the Minister to consider whether he cannot do something to present Bills such as this in a much clearer way.
I will quote one or two examples of the sort of thing I mean. In Clause 1, (4), we read:
Any increase attributable to this Part of this Act in the sum required by sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1929, as amended by Subsection (4) of Section twenty-seven of the Agriculture Act, 1937, to be paid out of moneys.provided by Parliament …
and so on. There are other examples which one could find, as for instance in Clause 8, (2),
The preceding Subsection shall apply in relation to a contravention of Subsection (2) of Section two of this Act with the omission of the references to a permit.
One could traverse every page of the Bill, and practically every Clause, and find a glaring example of this sort of thing. I do not want to delay the House by putting forward any more examples, but I say that in relation to all Bills dealing with any stage of agriculture it is necessary that there should be much more clarity. After watching some of these Bills for some years now, it appears to me that they are becoming more and more complicated. I do not blame any particular individuals in this connection; but it is time a start was made to clear up legislation dealing with agriculture. It must be made clear and clean so that everybody engaged in agriculture can know the law without trouble, for it is quite easy to make a slip if one does not understand what the law is. I ask the Minister to do his best to make the law as clear as possible.

9.50 p.m.

Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I am not so much concerned about the wording of the Bill, as about what is in the Bill, and I should like to say a word or two in its favour. As hon. Members know, tuberculosis is the greatest


scourge from which the human race suffers, and in so far as this Bill attempts to deal with that disease along one particular line, it is bound to have the support of myself and of every hon. Member in the House. Although medical science has placed at the disposal of the community the knowledge required to eradicate this disease, and although the cause has long been known and the cure—as far as the disease can be cured—is also known, it is tragic that this disease should be as rampant in this country as it is now. That fact is a disgrace to our civilisation.
One of the lines along which the disease can be tackled is to deal with bovine tuberculosis. On Friday of last week, I received an invitation to go to Shetland where the farmers were celebrating the fact that their cattle had been officially declared 100 per cent. tuberculin tested. It is remarkable that it should be left to the people in those remote islands to lead the van of progress in a matter of this sort, and I take the opportunity of paying the farmers and the crofters there a warm tribute for the wholehearted way in which they have co-operated in achieving that very remarkable result. I also pay an equally warm tribute to the veterinary officers of the Ministry, who have worked hard and long in difficult weather conditions. It must be a cause of great pride to them that their methods have met with 100 per cent. success. I am glad the Bill is before the House and I hope that the results which the Minister has in view will be achieved long before the date provided in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — ANIMALS [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to extend the period during which payments may be made under the Agriculture Act, 1937, in connection with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, and to amend the Horse Breeding Act, 1918, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of

moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in—

(a) the sums to be paid thereout into the Diseases of Animals Account to defray expenses under Section twenty of the Agriculture Act, 1937; and
(b) the sums to be paid thereout to defray expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the Horse Breeding Act, 1918. "—[Mr. T. Williams.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EXCHANGE CONTROL (PAYMENTS, U.S.S.R.)

9.55 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move:
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 13th January, 1948, entitled the Exchange Control (Payments) (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 17), a copy of which was presented on 20th January, be annulled.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make two things clear before I come to what I wish to say. The first is that there is nothing political in the moving of this Motion, and that whether it had been the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States, the Argentine, or any other country, my hon. Friends and I would have moved this Motion. Secondly, it is no intention of ours to raise any question about the trade portions of the Agreement against the financial arrangements of which we are now praying, but we think that it is essential, if this House is to understand the order, that some reference should be made to what has gone before in the financial arrangements between ourselves and Soviet Russia.
In 1941, in the heat of the war, we had an Agreement whereby 40 per cent. of the money that they borrowed from us should be repayable in gold and dollars and 60 per cent. in sterling lent by ourselves. For some reason—it is not ours to argue it tonight—that Agreement broke down and it was found necessary in the latter part of last year to form a new agreement. Articles 3 and 5 of that new Agreement govern the order we are discussing tonight.
It would be as well for the House to realise from the start the sacrifices we have made under these Clauses. In the first


place, we were told by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that he could not disclose what sums we had waived, but from an answer given by his master it was quite apparent that we had surrendered at least £60 million and wiped that off, that a further £160 million had been funded at some ½ per cent. and equally that we had waived £27 million under Lend-Lease. What we are asked to agree to now is a new arrangement which, despite the sacrifices that we have made, imposes still further liabilities upon us. If hon. Members will look at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the present order, they will see that it is perfectly possible for any sterling surplus received by the Russians to be used for payments within the Third and Fourth Schedules of the main Exchange Control Order, whereas if they will refer to paragraph 3 of the present order they will see that while sterling owned by Russia to ourselves may be paid in sterling, any such sterling required by Russia has to be made available by ourselves.
I ask the House to consider for a moment just what that lands us into. In the first case, it is quite apparent that during the next 12 months we shall have a credit balance with Russia. They are delivering a large number of goods to us and we shall have to pay for them. The money which they receive under Article 2 of this Agreement is made payable within al countries in the Third and Fourth Schedules to the main Control Exchange Order, and that can only mean that these sums can be used by Russia to secure goods from such countries as the Argentine Republic, Brazil, Egypt and Iran, to take four examples, from all of which countries we have the greatest difficulty in getting the goods we ourselves need. It must equally mean that in so far as this credit surplus is used by Russia to this end, so must our own power to use sterling in those areas be diminished.
Let us take one example. Suppose, for the purpose of argument, the Argentine are willing to hold £10 million of sterling; and suppose the Russians use their temporary surplus credit to the extent of £2 million in order to buy goods from the Argentine, and to use Article 2 for payment of that sum, that can only mean that our credit in the Argentine is reduced from £10 million to £8 million and that we shall be the immediate sufferers. In fact, if one were to pursue

it one stage further, and take the case of Egypt which is also included in the Schedule, I would ask the Financial Secretary this direct question: in so far as the Russians may use that temporary surplus of sterling within Egypt, how far do we not have to make sterling available from blocked sterling balances in order to meet that deficit? I believe that if the Financial Secretary will look into this, he will find that by every single penny we make available to the Russians under this Agreement, we shall have to fund that to the advantage of the Egyptians from No. 2 account to No. 1.
Coming to Article 3 of this Agreement, it is obvious that within, say, two years the Russians will owe us a lot of money. It may be said that just as the Russians are able to sell their sterling within Schedules 3 and 4 of the main Exchange Control Order, so will they now buy it back and, therefore, there is reciprocity; but the Economic Secretary knows that is wrong, because there is only one authority in Soviet Russia which is allowed to own foreign exchange, and that is the government, and when this order talks about sterling from an account of a person resident in Russia, that is some parrot phrase for the government itself, and should the government not wish to have sterling available, or not wish to purchase sterling, then under Article 5 of the Trade Agreement we have to provide the sterling from the Bank of England and pay it into the Soviet account in order that they may pay us.
In this House I have often challenged the Government about unrequited exports, but no more perfect example of unrequited exports could be found than this, that we solemnly, in a payments agreement, say that we will provide sterling to another country in order that they may pay us for their goods, and not only provide the sterling, but provide it, leave it there for four years, and then accept repayment of the capital over 10 further years charging only ½ per cent. interest. If that is not financial lunacy, I cannot imagine what is. I recall to the Government what was suggested the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), if I may remind the President of the Board of Trade of it:
I beg the new President of the Board of Trade, also in no carping spirit, not to get negotiator's fever, it he has not already con-


tracted the disease. No one on this side of the House will give any credit to anyone for coming to an agreement about anything."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January. 1948; Vol. 446, c. 1240.]
This Agreement shows what can happen when negotiator's fever takes the place of common sense. I would say further that if any hon. Member will read the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement, and will then read what is set down in this order, he must come to the conclusion that His Majesty's Government have been absolutely dishonest in what they have put in the White Paper because, while they have stated in that White Paper, first, that it was a triumph for bilateral agreement, and, secondly, that there was no cost incurred to this country, the fact is that whatever money Soviet Russia may earn from that Agreement is transferable to a great number of hard currency countries, and that any deficit has to be paid by this country in order to enable the Russians to pay us. Therefore, I say either that the White Paper, and particularly Clause 5, is dishonest or, alternatively, that secret agreements were reached by His Majesty's Government which have not been disclosed to this House.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will not mind me interrupting. I would like to make clear once again that there were no secret agreements at any stage. Everything was published, and if the hon. and gallant Member finds it incomprehensible, the fault lies with him.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Of course, I accept the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade that there is not any secret, but in that case I leave it to the House to decide. The White Paper, in Article 5, states the reason for the order this evening. I quoted the article correctly, and perhaps the President of the Board of Trade, having interrupted me, will now interrupt me again and say whether this order can be related to what the White Paper said because—[Interruption.] He palms it off on to someone else. The President of the Board of Trade challenged me, and I gave way, and I have asked him a question but he prefers someone else to answer.
Hon. Members opposite and on this side of the House have continually stated that if we are to pursue our present policy, and if we are to try to balance our trade, then exports must not be unrequited, and wherever we make an agreement we must regain some service for it. If my interpretation is correct, this order denies both those principles. I suggest to the House that if hon. Members have been sincere in the many economic Debates held in this House one thing they cannot do is to allow this order to stand now.

10.7 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite Eyre) has performed a service in the readiness he has shown to challenge any arrangement which appeared to involve unrequited exports from this country. It was a misfortune that, shortly before Christmas, when we raised a similar matter, we were prevented from hearing a reply from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury as the House was counted out. This afternoon the right hon. Gentleman received many bouquets for the lucidity with which he introduced the Second Reading of the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Bill. We hope very much to hear similar lucidity from him tonight. I see he indicates that his hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury is to reply.
Many of us have thought that the financial provisions of the Trade and Payments Agreement by which the provisions of the 1941 agreement were modified were too generous to Russia; but the point with which my hon. and gallant Friend has mainly concerned himself tonight, and the only point on which I shall touch, is the aspect of current transactions. It seems to us that in the earlier stages there will arise a surplus of sterling in favour of Soviet Russia. As my hon. and gallant Friend has argued, Soviet Russia will be free to spend that sterling in any of those countries named in the Fourth Schedule to the Payments Order. We assume that later the balance of trade will change in favour of the United Kingdom. When that happens the Soviet will have to produce sterling, but if she has spent the sterling surplus which arose in favour of


Soviet Russia during the earlier stages, she will only be able to get fresh sterling by borrowing more sterling from us.
That is a most unfortunate prospect from the point of view of the United Kingdom. Already we have agreed to modify the terms of repayment and the rate of interest on the sterling already owed to the United Kingdom under the 1941 Agreement. Soviet Russia still has to make repayment of that, spread over a long period of time, but in reduced amounts and carrying much reduced rates of interest. But that has got to be found. She will also presumably still be importing goods from the United Kingdom, but if she has spent her sterling surplus which arises from the earlier transactions, where is Soviet Russia to
Obtain the sterling required to provide for the service of the funded debt, and also to provide for the purchase of fresh goods from this country? There is only one way in which that sterling can be found by Soviet Russia—it is by further borrowing from this country.
That is the burden of our contention tonight. If the hon. Gentleman who is to reply proves it to be wrong, no one will be better pleased than my hon. and gallant Friend and myself. That appears to us to be the position, and it does not seem to us that we are getting value from this Agreement or from the way in which this order proposes to implement the terms of the Agreement. This country is, I feel, being bled white by transactions involving unrequited exports. It seems to me that the transaction involved in this Agreement, and furthered by this Order, is a transaction which, unless we receive assurances from the hon. Gentleman that our calculations are incorrect, we ought to ask the House to annul tonight.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade to explain one point about this Trade Agreement, about which I am not at all clear. He will no doubt recollect the original announcement on the subject of the Anglo-Soviet trade talks made in the House by his predecessor. The then President of the Board of Trade, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, explained to the House that the original negotiations broke down over the terms

of the repayment of the 1941 credit. He said:
—we could not go the whole way the Soviet Government demanded as a condition of an agreement.
He went on to say:
The concessions we were prepared to make involved us in a heavy loss in the next three or four years, and in view of our serious overseas financial position, we could not meet what the Soviet Government, after moving some way to meet us, stated were their minimum terms."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1947; Vol. 441, c. 37.]
When the right hon. Gentleman made his last announcement to the House, on his return from what was described as a successful conclusion of the negotiations, he said:
Agreement was reached in principle also on the terms of repayment of the credit advanced under the Civil Supplies Agreement of 1941 and on other financial questions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1947; Vol. 445, c. 1208.]
If, in July, 1947, our overseas financial position was such that it was considered impossible to make any further concessions towards the Soviet minimum demands, in what way was this position altered by last December? Had our overseas financial position improved so much that we felt able to abandon the position we had taken up?

Mr. Speaker: I think that goes beyond the scope of this order. After all, this order deals with facts which are part of the Agreement, and the Agreement itself cannot be discussed. These are methods of payment—financial methods—and to discuss the whole Agreement in relation to Russia is quite outside this order.

Mr. Mott-Radcyffe: I apologise if I am out of Order. I thought the methods of payment we are discussing tonight hung to some extent on the original arrangements under the 1941 Agreement.

Mr. Speaker: The mover of the Motion merely gave it as a background. We cannot discuss the background now that we have arrived at the foreground.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: I apologise for digressing. It was unintentional, merely wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman to assure the House that he had, in fact, not made concessions too great in respect of this Agreement, and that what was called the successful conclusion was not wholly successful on one side and wholly unsuccessful on the other.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Drayton: I dislike this Order as much as many others which have been introduced by this Government, but as it is connected with a trade agreement which provides for this country three-quarters of a million tons of course grain, which the farmers in my constituency are most anxious to receive, I am awaiting the Minister's reply with great interest. If the supply of this grain is contingent upon this order being approved, it may well be that there are some merits in it. It is difficult to assess precisely what the merits are, as we have not yet had the opportunity of discussing fully the terms of the trade agreement under which it arises. It appears to me that we are going to receive in this country feedingstuffs to the value of approximately—

Mr. Speaker: It does not deal with feedingstuffs; it deals with a monetary arrangement and payment.

Mr. Drayson: I will confine myself to the actual sum of money which I consider, according to my rough calculations, is involved in this order. I have estimated that it will amount to something between £25 million and £30 million. Those credits are to be built up by the Soviet Union as a result of their supplying certain commodities to this country. What we are discussing is how the position will be dealt with when those credits have been accumulated. We understand that certain capital goods are to be supplied by this country at a future date. It may be that the total sum involved does not equal the value of the goods to be supplied. Therefore, the Soviet Government—perhaps not having confidence in this country being able to supply them with goods from our current production—sought for permission to be able to expend this sterling throughout the sterling area. This order adds the U.S.S.R. to the various Schedules dealing with sterling in the Exchange Control Act of 1947.
I welcome any move which tends to make sterling into a more desirable currency, and to give it greater flexibility amongst those who acquire it. I suggest that the Soviet Government, in requiring this provision in the trade Agreement, have called the bluff of His Majesty's Government to see exactly what sterling will buy in the sterling areas throughout the world. When he was Chancellor of

the Exchequer the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) was unfortunate when he agreed to the convertibility of sterling balances into dollars. Let us see what will happen to this sterling which we are allowing the Soviet Government to place on their transferable account. Let us see what they will get for it.
I would like to think that this new Order opens up a vast field of expanding trade with the Soviet Union. If we could get together on the basis of trade and not of politics, it would be far better for the peace of the world. I am glad that the President of the Board of Trade has succeeded with that country where the Foreign Secretary has utterly failed during the last two years. It would be interesting to hear what complaints, if any, have been received from other members of the sterling area or from the countries involved in the Schedules mentioned in the order. I would like to know whether any of the countries concerned have objected to this Agreement with the Soviet Union. On the question of unrequited sterling balances, the House and the country are well aware that there are a large number of things that are unrequited. The possible merits of the Agreement are that we will get into this country certain articles which are desirable; but I shall believe that they are coming when I see them.

10.25 p.m.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): The hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) asked me whether the supply of 750,000 tons of feedingstuffs to this country was contingent on the making of this order. The answer is, "Yes," and I can add that it was just because we made this order that the first shipment of that grain actually left Russian ports for this country on Thursday of last week. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) who initiated this Debate, accused the Government, if I understood him right, of being dishonest, because the order made did not proceed from the White Paper on the Russian Trade Agreement which was recently laid before the House. Really, there is no dishonesty about it, because, if the hon. and gallant Member will look at pages 8 and 9 of the White Paper, which set out the payments agreement between the two Governments, he will find that the order


not merely flows automatically from that but is merely the necessary machinery for carrying that Agreement into effect.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Does the mean, minister in his last statement, that, instead of reading "Agreement signed by the two Governments," one should read, "Exchange of letters"?

Mr. Jay: It is part of the general Agreement—

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Absolute nonsense.

Mr. Jay: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me, what he will read on page 8 of the White Paper is, "Payments Agreement between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics," which is the same thing as an Agreement between the two Governments. There is nothing dishonest about it, and nothing to get heated about at all.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether this exchange of letters, which constitutes an Appendix to the White Paper, has the same value as Article 5, which was signed officially by the Government?

Mr. Jay: They are both of equal value and validity. The point which the hon. and gallant Member does not appreciate is that the order we are discussing tonight has nothing whatever to do with Article 5, which relates only to the civil supplies agreement of 1941, as it proceeds entirely on the payments arrangements to be found on pages 8 and 9 of the White Paper.
The hon. and gallant Member also asked me, if I understood him correctly, whether it was true that, under the Agreement, Great Britain is involved, for instance, in making available to Russia, for the purpose of buying goods in Egypt, Egyptian blocked sterling. The specific answer is "No." It is only sterling in transferable accounts, and not blocked sterling, which is available for that purpose. What we are really discussing tonight is a method of payment between the two countries in respect of goods we are getting from Russia and manufactured goods we are sending to Russia, and it seems to me that the two most important

facts in the background of the Financial Agreement have not been mentioned at all.
The first essential fact, surely, is that the negotiations between this country and Russia were conducted on the assumption that we should have to pay in convertible sterling—gold or dollars—for any grain we might get. In December, however, the Russians agreed to sell very large quantities of feedingstuffs for non-convertible sterling. That was a very fine concession, and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. MottRadclyffe), who asked what the difference was. The other most important fact about the financial background is that, by this Agreement, we shall, in the early stages, that is, in the coming months, obtain a much larger supply of goods from Russia in value than we shall be sending to Russia. That means that unrequited exports will be the other way round. Russia will be sending unrequited exports to us, and Russia will, in fact, as she is doing at present, be tending to increase her holdings of sterling. That means that, to that extent, Russia is making a short-term credit to us and is incidentally showing her confidence in sterling, which I am sure will be gratifying to all parties in the House.
The hon. Member for Sutton Goldfield (Sir J. Mellor) asked how Russia, if she had expended all her sterling, which she may have done, will he able in future to buy additional goods. Obviously her ability to buy them will depend on whether she can sell us more goods. As negotiations are to be resumed later in the year it may be that is how the matter will turn out.
Perhaps I may say a word briefly on the specific purposes of this order. The purpose of this order is to include Russia in what is called the "transferable account" group of countries. I may perhaps add that if the House were to annul this order tonight, the Government would still have all the powers to do the things they want to do under this order. Hon. Members may well ask why it is we need to have the order at all. The answer to that is that the order enables us to do these things in a much more rapid, expeditious and efficient way. It enables the necessary measures to be taken without so many of those bureaucratic interferences and delays and' expenditure of


manpower and paper, and so on, that hon. Members opposite so much dislike. I cannot really believe the Opposition would want to press this Prayer tonight since the effect of annulling the order would be not merely to increase the tightness of our exchange control generally, which I remember the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Assheton) deprecating when we were discussing the Exchange Control Bill, but greatly to increase the administrative work necessary to carry out this very valuable trade agreement.
The crux of the order is in paragraph 2, which very briefly places Russia in what I have called the "transferable account" group of countries. I would like to explain what that group involves, and here, perhaps, I might refer the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch to an article in the "Economist" of 24th January, because he might pay more respect to the words of the "Economist" than to mine. In effect, it expressed the hope that that group of "transferable account" countries might be expanded and that, of course, is exactly what we are doing by admitting Russia to membership by this order.
The essence of the "transferable account" system is this: it enables a resident in any country in the group to pay in sterling for goods from any member of the sterling area or any other member of the "transferable accounts" group, and enables him to accept payment in sterling for exports to any member of the group or of the sterling area. That is to say, in effect, that it encourages trade within the group and between the group and the sterling area and, incidentally, encourages the holding of sterling by member countries which is beneficial to us and enhances confidence in sterling generally. I remember the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) last week advising the Government to take steps to increase confidence in sterling, and this is another object to which this order contributes.
Perhaps I may also mention two things which membership of the "transferable account" group does not permit. It does not permit a member to take capital transfers to other countries in the group: it merely permits transfers on current

account. It does not enable the country concerned to extract any gold or dollars from Great Britain. Therefore, there is nothing in this order which will cost Great Britain any gold or dollars.
I would like to emphasise finally that there have been two very good reasons for making the financial arrangements included in this Agreement and making them in such a way as to facilitate Russian trade. The first point, surely, is that there is the Civil Supplies Agreement, but that is an old debt, and ordinary commercial considerations cannot be applied to it; that was the reason for making some of the concessions here. Secondly, this is merely an Agreement by which Russia accepts payment for grains in non-convertible sterling, and that is more favourable to us, and less favourable to the Russians than the scheme discussed last summer. I submit that nothing useful whatever would be achieved by annulling an order such as this, the purpose of which is simply to bring Russia into the transferable account group of countries. Furthermore, I would also point out that it provides financial machinery for a general Agreement of value to Great Britain, and to British agriculture above all.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: would like to intervene now because, at this stage, I have an opportunity to say that I am glad that the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Jay) has had the chance to make his maiden speech as a junior Minister on this occasion. I worked with the hon. Member during the war and I know of the intelligence and industry which he brought to bear on his work in those days, and which, I am sure he employs in his new appointment. But I am sorry that on this particular occasion he does not take the same view of this matter as I and my hon. colleagues sitting behind me. This is, admittedly, a rather difficult order to understand, but I observe that most hon. Members opposite—and some, probably, on this side—seem able to discuss this complex matter without having a copy of the order to hand. Some of its technicalities are quite considerable, and I must congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel CrosthwaiteEyre) on the clear way in which he puts his case.
I do not know whether the House feels that the case made out was a good one, but in answer to the Economic Secretary I would say he tried, so it seemed to me, to convince the House that the sterling which the Russians would have available as a result of the particular agreement under this order itself, would not have a deleterious effect on our gold and dollar reserves. I agree that, in a limited technical sense, that is true, but, at the same time, I suggest that in the broader sense it is certainly not so. I say that because what will happen under the payments agreement is that the Russians will have a certain amount of sterling which they will be able to use in those countries such as Egypt, the Argentine, Brazil, and Iran which are those that have been mentioned, and that will have exactly the same effect. The Government clearly think that the whole transaction is all very fine for this country, but I find it very difficult to take that view.
The price paid for this agreement is a very heavy one. I fully realise the difficulties which confronted the President of the Board of Trade when he started his negotiations, and I have every sympathy for him, but now that he has come home, we cannot allow that sympathy to delude us into thinking that he has made a good bargain. Mr. Speaker has made it clear to us that we cannot go into the whole agreement, and I am in some difficulty in answering the question I have put myself. Broadly, I think—and this is as far as I shall be permitted to go—we have got less than we have given. So far as this purely financial order is concerned, the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend is, I think, that we have put the Russians into the position of getting an advantage which, over the period of, say, two or three years, will be very much to our detriment. I agree that if the Russians send over shiploads of coarse grain in the next month or so, and we have sent nothing to them in return, that would not, in itself, make the case of unrequited exports which he has made. But take it for a longer period—for six months or a year ahead—and then the thing is reversed.
What we are sending to the Russians, without any doubt, is something equivalent to the hardest possible currency. We are sending them machinery which may he sold for hard currency in a great

many countries which are paying in really hard currency. So that when my hon. Friend speaks of unrequited exports he is right over a period of months, and certainly over a period of years. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) when he talked of our being bled white by transactions involving unrequited exports, was quite right. It is difficult to form an opinion on such a technical matter as this order. I see the difficulty in which hon. Members must be when they try to cope with it. Those of us who have spent considerable time studying these things find that we have difficulty. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, with all his experience of economic affairs, has not had a great deal of experience yet with the technicalities of this Exchange Control business. I think we must support the view of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch that this is definitely a disadvantageous order from the point of view of sterling. Hon. Members opposite talk about Russia coming into the sterling area. But that is not the position at all. The Russians have said they are not going to demand non-convertible sterling, but in fact they are going to sell for sterling which can be converted into currencies which are very scarce. I feel bound to support the point of view put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: The Prime Minister is paying an unconscious tribute to the Opposition in being present while this Prayer is being moved tonight. H graced the House with his presence when another order was discussed only a few days ago, and we are glad that he is here to-night to listen to a Debate on a matter of even greater importance. Immediately after the conclusion of the Trade Agreement, the President of the Board of Trade came to my constituency and discussed the matter with a meeting of my constituents. In joining in the protest against this order I do not want the President of the Board of Trade to think that I am wholly against the purport of this Agreement. However, there is a number of points relating to the speech of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury about which I have some doubts.
The first shipment of grain from Russia, he said, took place last Thursday. It is


a pity that he did not say whether it was in British or Russian ships. It is true, as he said, that the negotiations which were successfully concluded in November and December represented an improvement on the summer negotiations; but they nevertheless represent an extremely hard bargain. It is true that we no longer have to pay in convertible currency, but to suggest that we were likely to accumulate a large credit during the summer due to the Russian shipments of grain to this country is only half the case; because an important point is that unless successful contracts are made by Russian company agents in this country, the Russians reserve the right to withhold a large part of the grain during the current shipping period. That is clearly stated in Subsection C of Article 3 and I would like to draw the attention of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to that very point. It is not, therefore, the good bargain which the Economic Secretary to the Treasury suggested it was. It is a hard bargain and with a bit of luck we shall be able to keep to it. But it must be remembered that the machinery which the Russians hope to obtain—a certain proportion of it will come from engineering firms in my constituency—might well be sent to hard currency countries.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is going right outside this order. I think that one must be very careful of that.

Mr. Erroll: I quite agree, Mr. Speaker, how careful one must be, particularly as transferable currency may be involved as a result of the bargain just concluded. As we are sending machinery to Russia as a result of this agreement, and we have to consider the matter of hard currency, whether it be roubles, francs or dollars, you will appreciate how difficult it is.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that, but I do not think that one can use a monetary or financial arrangement as a peg on which to hang a discussion on the Trade Agreement itself. I do not think that one can put the hen before the egg or the egg before the hen in that way.

Mr. Erroll: We are likely to export machinery before we get satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, and it is on that that we feel considerable concern on this side of the House. As regards the details of the order, we appreciate that it represents an ad

vance on the summer arrangement that it should be a transferable account in convertible currency. We have witnessed in the last few years considerable and serious leakage in one kind of account and another, and it is by no means certain that transactions on transferable account, within the transferable club, as it has been called, as has been suggested by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, will in fact prevent a certain amount of leakage into other types of accounts. We are very disappointed on this side of the House that there have been no assurances given that transferable account will be utterly watertight, or utterly currency tight, or that there will be no leakages. It was rightly pointed out by the Secretary to the Treasury that the Government have all the powers, and that they need not bother with this order, except as a matter of administrative convenience. It may be that is the case, but members of the Opposition, and the country in general, are not reassured by statements of that kind. There is very great need for fuller information on the whole complex question of this type of currency transaction and if this Prayer yields nothing else, it will help, I hope, all of us and the country to see the complexity of our present difficulties.

10.54 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite—Eyre: The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in his reply, touched on a number of issues, and the first one was that the sacrifices made by this country were well worth while in achieving a broader sphere of exchange of trade. That seems to me to come very curiously from the Government which have brushed aside the fact that we have given up £187 million and agreed to receive one-sixth of the interest on the balance, and yet, at the same time, are unwilling to press with any of the other countries mentioned in the schedule to achieve any reduction in the debt that we owe to them. It seems to be just a one-way bargain. If one looks at this one will find the Government's answer, is that unrequited exports are not incurred, but as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said, in the first 12 months, the Russians are going to have a surplus of currency. He went on to say that the unrequited exports would be in our favour and not in theirs, but that is just what does not happen under the order,


because the Russians are wholly entitled to use their actual sterling surplus for purchases in the 16 countries mentioned in the Third and Fourth Schedules to the main Exchange Control Order, and there is nothing to stop the Russians using whatever sterling they may thus have from competing against us in such countries as Brazil, the Argentine and Egypt for goods which we ourselves badly need.
I would suggest to the House—and my contention has not been answered—that any of these countries is willing only to hold a certain amount of sterling and by that amount which the Russians place in these markets, by so much will our own imports be reduced. Under this order too, we grant the Russians unrestricted credits from this country in order to pay for that which they buy from us.

Mr. Jay: Does not the hon. and gallant Member realise that this order puts Russia into exactly the same position as any other country in the transferable accounts group. If he has no political bias in the matter, why does he object to Russia being a member and not all the other countries?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I have no political bias. My objection is that Russia is granted credits in order to pay for our exports. This part of my argument is not addressed to transferability. I would call the attention of the Economic Secretary to Article 5 of the financial arrangements of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement. There he will read under subsection B:
Any debit balance shall be discharged in sterling to he paid to the account by the Government of the U.K by way of advances to the Government of the U.S.S.R."—
That can only mean one thing—that if at any stage the Russians owe us money, we then put money into the account in order to balance it. If there is any other interpretation I should be glad to hear it: certainly none has been advanced tonight.

My last point is that the Economic Secretary says we are not to suffer from the loss of gold and dollars. He has forgotten one thing. Of these countries in the "transfer club"—a most unpleasant club, because every member uses the opportunity of hitting every other member over the head with the longest possible club—every member has taken precautions with regard to sterling. They say, "No more hardships for us, let us take advantage of the weakness of sterling." If we allow unrequited sterling to come into the "club" so we will increase our difficulties and ensure that, in the case, for example, of the Argentine, more dollars and more gold will have to be spent by us in order to cover the surplus sterling. Equally in the case of Egypt this unrequited sterling will mean that more has to be transferred from the No. 2 Accounts to the No. 1 Accounts in order to guarantee the amount of convertibility that the Egyptians want. The Economic Secretary was very smooth and suave in his attitude. He is the ideal club secretary who insures that the members remain members as long as possible even if they pay only half their entrance fee. What we ask the Government to do is to take back this agreement as it stands, for it means unrequited exports to us and a further burden on sterling and our gold reserve. Let them consider it anew, because under it we in this country instead of using our best endeavours to restore a fundamental disequilibrium are simply signing our names to a document to secure a political victory for His Majesty's Government.

Question put,
That an humble Address he presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 13th January, 1948, entitled the Exchange Control (Payments) (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 17), a copy of which was presented on 10th January, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 30; Noes, 170.

ARMED FORCES (DESERTERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

11.4 p.m.

Air-Commodore Harvey: I should like to apologise to the House for not taking advantage of the Adjournment Motion when I ballotted for it last December. The fact was that I was going into hospital on the following day and I went out of the Chamber for an hour, end in the meantime the House adjourned and Members got a holiday.
I wish to raise the question of the large number of deserters because it is a running sore in some respects. In the autumn of last year there were approximately 21,000 deserters in the United Kingdom. On 22nd January, 1947, the Minister of Defence said the number of deserters was then nearly 20,000, and I am concerned that the figures seem to have increased in the months of 1947. I am not certain how that figure is arrived at, but an explanation would be very welcome. When the Minister of Defence made that statement, he said that those who were deserters were strongly recommended to surrender at once. Those who surrendered


voluntarily by 31st March would have that fact and any other mitigating circumstance taken into account when their cases were determined. The response was fairly good, and quite a number came in. I think about 1,615 responded to the Minister's invitation to surrender.
Going back to 1946, on 7th March, before we had a Minister of Defence, the Home Secretary said that the number of deserters was 18,753. On 19th November, 1946, the then Secretary of State for War, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger), said it was 15,000 odd. I find it very difficult to reconcile these varying figures in such a short space of time. I asked the Minister of Defence last November how many deserters from the three Services, who had deserted before VJ Day, were still at large_ and how many had deserted since and were still at large. I felt that it was very necessary to differentiate between those who deserted during the war, and those who deserted since the end of the war. If the number has gone up since the end of the war, it opens up the question of discipline, and points to something being wrong in that respect. This is a situation which ought not to be allowed to continue. I can understand that there were a large number of deserters before the war; but before the war they could not do very much harm. There was plenty of food and of most other things, but now with so much scarcity, there is much more scope for the deserters. These men are living without identity cards, ration cards, or clothing coupons, and this in itself, makes the identity card for the rest of us completely valueless when one gets 22,000 people without cards at all. Many must be living on crime. There is no doubt about that. There was an article in "The Times" two weeks ago stating that 9 per cent. of the crime in London in 1946 was attributable to deserters. I do not know how "The Times" obtained these figures, but I believe most of the figures in "The Times," and that was what they gave.
I know one deserter who has been in crime for about a year, and is reputed to have had about 4'250,000 in precious stones. He does not go in for any other articles, such as furs, for instance. He was arrested in Berkshire, and the only charge preferred against him was for having a false identity card, in respect of which he

received one month's imprisonment. He was living next door to a police inspector in Hendon, and his children played with the inspector's children for over 12 months. Only yesterday or the day before another deserter confessed to having beaten up a schoolmistress at Roedean.
I am dead against a general amnesty. I do not believe that one can do that, because there are millions who have served their country faithfully, and it would be wrong to let those off completely who have deserted. We are, as time goes on, more lenient with the Germans, and because of that we have to review the problem in the light of the present situation. I would like to offer to the Minister of Defence one or two suggestions. In the first place, I imagine a great number of deserters came from Eire, and I believe several thousands have already gone back. They are a dead loss anyhow. They will not come back. They should be formally discharged without any claim to their gratuity at a future date. By law, the deserter must, in the ordinary way, be dealt with by court martial, except in the Royal Navy, where the captain of a ship, destroyer, or cruiser, has powers to award 90 days' detention to the deserter, subject to confirmation by warrant by the Admiralty. As far as the R.A.F. is concerned, I should like to see Section 12 of the Air Force Act, which deals with deserters, and Paragraph 1129 of King's Regulations, modified to permit—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not permitted to deal with legislation.>

Air-Commodore Harvey: I quite appreciate that, Sir, and was not intending to pursue the point further. I mention it because I think there is an argument for increasing the powers of commanding officers to deal with cases. A station commander in the R.A.F. now has powers to allot up to 28 days' detention. In many cases such punishment would be enough. If it is not enough, however, the case can go to the Air Officer Commanding the Group, who has larger powers to deal with cases summarily; usually such an officer is of the rank of Air Vice-Marshal. In compassionate cases, it may not be necessary even to award 28 days' detention. When there are no extenuating circumstances at all, the case should be remanded to a court martial. A directive should go out from the Air Ministry, the


War Office and the Admiralty to ensure uniformity of punishment for deserters, no matter to which Service they belong, so that they may be treated fairly.
When a deserter surrenders voluntarily, as the result of an appeal the Minister has made or may make, I suggest he should be discharged after undergoing his punishment. He is no good to the Service; he is a "bad hat" with a cloud over him, and the Service would be well shut of him. His gratuity should be paid or withheld at the discretion of the authorities, and be dependent on the merits of the case. The longer the time of desertion, the more crimes the man has probably committed, but in the case of a man who surrenders voluntarily the petty crimes of having lived without an identity card or without a ration book ought to be brushed aside. A man will be the more deterred from surrendering if he knows he must be tried by court martial for some things and for petty offences by a civil court.
Many descters Wave strong reasons for having deserted; not great numbers of them, but a number. These reasons may have been family troubles, for instance. I have a letter—it is anonymous, of course—from a deserter. I shall not bore the House by reading the whole of it, but I propose to read a paragraph to show how a man may have what seems to him to be a good reason—as distinct, that is, from a criminal one—for deserting. The writer says:
I am a deserter. I am quite willing to go into the coal mines or to any other job the Government would like to send me to, if they will dishonourably discharge me from the Forces. I have been a deserter for several years, not because I want to be a deserter, but because I have no other way out. I was forced to desert through the medical men. Before the war my complaint got serious. I had to wear special irons and boots. My complaint is deformity of both feet.
He goes on to talk of conscientious objectors being given special treatment, and so on. There is a case of a man who probably had reasons for deserting the Forces. They are not all "bad hats."
If the Minister were to stretch a little more the appeal he made last year he might pull in 3,000 or 4,000 more of these men, who are roaming the countryside, getting themselves into trouble, and making themselves a great nuisance to the community. I know the Minister has a very kind heart, and that he would

like to get some more of these men to surrender. I hope, therefore, that he will review the position, while at the same time maintaining discipline in the Services.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Austin: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) has raised this matter. I have enumerated various arguments over the past year, and have initiated two Debates, and have asked many Questions on the subject, without, I regret to say, receiving any satisfaction from the Minister. I hope that, whereas he has hardened his heart to a Member on the back benches on his own side, he may be magnanimous towards one on the Opposition benches.
I will not weary the House by repeating the argument I have used previously, but it is obvious from what has been said that the number of deserters is increasing, and if that is a fact it means in effect that the treatment so far meted out is not succeeding. It is my contention that if the Minister wants to deal fairly with this matter, he must accord treatment that will achieve some sort of solution, and that is not happening at the moment. I welcome the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the discretion be left with the Commanding Officer either to punish the man or to forgive him for the offence. There seems to be some doubt whether the Commanding Officer has the discretion, but if I may refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Debate I last initiated on this count, I referred then to the King's Regulations which provide for the C.O.'s competence in this matter. I do think that is the most reasonable solution. Indeed, after the last war, somewhere about 1924, the then Secretary of State for War, Sir Laming Worthington-Evans, had to fall back on this solution of allowing the matter to be left to the Commanding Officer. It seems to me that if we are not to see an increase in crime—and we have had about 9 per cent. of indictable crime laid to the door of deserters in the Metropolitan Area alone—something of this kind ought to be done. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite quoted a letter. I could show the Minister a file of letters of the most heartrending character from men and their relatives who have written to me in the past.
I have appealed to the Minister from almost every conceivable aspect. I have pointed out that an amnesty or partial amnesty—and I am only asking for a partial amnesty—has been granted in various other countries in the world. I have appealed to him on grounds of military efficiency, on grounds of discipline, and of reason and common sense and on grounds of sentiment. I hope tonight he will have some message of hope for those men who are deserters, very often through no fault of their own. Without taking up any more time, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the whole question. If his brief is already prepared and he will not give way, I appeal to him to think it over. The question is a running sore and something will have to be done if we are to arrive at a reasonable solution.

11.18 p.m.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): am glad to have the opportunity of clearing up some of the points which have been referred to from time to tune in these Debates and in Questions with regard to deserters. It is an unfortunate and distressing business to have this number of deserters, but I want to say at once that the figures which have had to be given from time to time can easily be quite misleading in the minds of the public as to what is the true volume of the trouble. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey) quoted figures given in the early part of last year and compared them with the figures of deserters outstanding in October last. The fact is that the figures given in January related entirely to men who had deserted in this country. When we came to deal with further Questions during the course of the year, we felt it right to give the total for the whole world.
It is not true, if I may say so to my hon. Friend on this side, that the net figures of deserters are increasing. They are certainly not decreasing at the rate I would like them to decrease, but nevertheless, broadly speaking, they are decreasing. The figure for deserters throughout the world was 23,000 in January, 1947, and at 31st December, 1947, was just over 20,100, so that there has been a decrease over the year of round about 3,000. It is true, of course, that during the first quarter of 1947, because of the offer of

leniency we got a considerable increase above the normal flow of surrenders over the period of ten weeks during the currency of the Government's special appeal. But I would say to the hon. and gallant Member who raised this subject tonight, that we got nearly 2,500 during that period altogether, and there was a net reduction in the total of deserters of about 3,000 over the year.
It is obvious that while we have the continuing problem of desertion from the Forces—and large numbers of these men return only a comparatively short time after they have been put off the absence-without-leave list, and posted as deserters—one of the reasons why I cannot yield to the "sweet reasonableness" of the hon. Member who has just spoken is because of the effect on discipline. One has to remember that in the present circumstances under which we have to continue National Service, we cannot appear so lenient as some countries, who have no continuing National Service army. In the case of the United States—apart from special treatment for conscientious objectors—the general principle that has been followed there is the same as we are following here.
We are often pressed about this question of numbers, and, in that connection, I would add one other point. It is almost impossible to have constant dissection of figures in order to discuss particular aspects of the problem of deserters. The numbers may actually be much less than the figures which we return. Every month now, the Army alone deal with about 60 cases of men who have deserted, but who have enlisted again in another unit, sometimes twice, or even on three occasions. There are also the men who join another arm of the Services. I recall the case brought to my notice recently of a man who had joined six units under six different names, having deserted each time. So it will be seen that the recorded total over the whole of the units may very easily be much larger than is actually the case. I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member opposite for having reminded us that, in the case of Southern Ireland, there is a large block of men who have returned to Eire; and it has to be remembered that we have no further jurisdiction over them. It is considered by some that it would be possible for us to write them off altogether, so that they


would have no further claim upon us, with no rights in future to gratuity. But the Service Departments have to consider how that affects everyone else in the deserters' list—men who have not the same cover of domicile as applies to those whose homes are in that particular area. That is the difficulty, and while I do not say that I would not accept such a scheme, I have some doubt whether it could be made effective.
I was asked about the possibility of greater latitude being accorded in the summary treatment of offenders who surrender, more on the lines allowed in the Royal Navy. The code of discipline of the Royal Navy has always been somewhat different from that of the Army and the Royal Air Force, and for reasons which have grown up with the respective Services. There is the obvious difference of the practicability of making arrangements sufficiently frequently for general courts martial. There is moreover always the argument to be made that a single code of discipline should, so far as is possible, be applied in each of the three Services. It is true, as the hon. and gallant Member has pointed out, that there is something of the same kind in regard to summary jurisdiction in the Army and the R.A.F. But the station officer and the Commanding Officer in those two Services have less latitude in regard to the extent to which they can punish. From the inquiries I have made—and I have made inquiries about it specifically—I am afraid that this proposal is not looked upon very favourably. It would give rise to a number of difficulties. And I am bound to say—though I hope it will not be out of order for me to do so on an Adjournment Motion—that to put his proposal into effect would require legislation. It would not be possible to get over Section 46 (2) of the Army and Air Force Acts, without amending legislation; and I am not certain that all hon. Members would be willing to increase the powers of Commanding Officers in the Army and the Royal Air Force.

Air—Commodore Harvey: May I say that I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has appreciated that if the cases were dealt with summarily, the men involved would be freed from being kept under close arrest,

probably in cells, for three or perhaps six months.

Mr. Alexander: I agree that that is a point of substance, but there are two matters which I would mention. One is that those who surrender, except in some very few cases in which, perhaps, papers had to be brought from long distances, and cases coming from widely scattered areas, have had their cases dealt with in very quick time. In the great majority of cases, these men have not been under detention, and their family and dependants' allowances were immediately restored on their surrender. They were put under open arrest and dealt with as quickly as possible. But I do not rule out entirely consideration of the suggestion which has been put forward, and there is no reason why any hon. Member should not raise this question of summary jurisdiction when we are dealing with the annual Estimates of the Army and Royal Air Force. But I cannot be forthcoming tonight and say that this point is one which I think the Service Departments will look upon with favour.
Let me say, with regard to leniency, that, generally speaking, there is an amazing amount for which we have never been given sufficient credit; but I am anxious that the sympathy which hon. Members show for deserters should not be used so as to deter their surrender. The fact is that a great number of men who have surrendered and have been sentenced have not served any of their sentence. The sentence has been immediately suspended. A great many others have been sentenced more heavily on the ground of the circumstances involved in individual cases. It may have been that there were less grounds for compassion. But of the 2,500 who surrendered in response to my appeal, a comparatively small number have served as much as six months; and even those sentences have been under constant review, with the possibility of their being suspended altogether. When I look at what has been done in that connection, I say that it would be unfair to those who have served their sentences after surrender, or who are rehabilitating themselves after surrender, to go further in the direction of leniency. It would have a deleterious effect on the discipline of the serving Forces. I am sure the Govern


ment would not adopt the suggestion that we should encourage any further leniency in that connection, and I could not recommend such a course to the Government.
I would point out, however, one special thing on the point that some deserters have stated that they did not want to come back as it meant going on serving a long time after. From about August we did not insist upon a man serving in the Army for twelve months after he had surrendered. A deserter used to be required to serve 12 months' good conduct before he had his previous time restored to him in settling what should be his age and service group for release. That concession has been made to induce them to come back. I hope that many will take advantage of that.
I hope that members will not be misled by the kind of reports one gets in the papers given by individual cases which suggest that deserters generally were being very badly and harshly dealt with. All these cases, which are examined by the District Commanding Officer, are immediately dealt with sympathetically if they are compassionate cases. I hope very much that regard will be paid to the facts I have put before the House tonight. If any man who is now a deserter really wants to make good and have his conscience clear, and without any chance of interference in future in his civilian life, he can come back and be

leniently treated and come out again and face life, as he ought to face it, as a good and decent citizen.
The extent to which these men engage in crime is overestimated. I have had the figures looked up so far as one can measure them from the Metropolitan returns. In the Metropolitan Police District, of the total number of persons arrested for indictable crimes, in 1944, deserters accounted for only 7 per cent. and in 1945 for 5.7 per cent. While precisely parallel statistics are not available for 1946, I am informed that of those convicted—and therefore I agree that it is not as comprehensive as the case of those arrested—only 4.7 per cent. were deserters. We cannot compare the general population with the kind of population we have in the Armed Forces, knowing that we had to call up during the War all classes of citizens, including some who were criminals already or who had criminal tendencies. When hon. Members take account of that they will find that there is nothing like so serious a contribution to crime by the deserter as has been suggested.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-six Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.